Gandalf Vs. The Witch King

[obloquy]

You have completely ignored my argument about the letter, and have yet to provide any support for your opinion from the text. The conclusion that Gandalf and Sauron were equal is not a sudden jump in logic. I quote, once again:

To the overthrow of Morgoth he [Manwë] sent his herald Eönwë. To the defeat of Sauron would he not then send some lesser (but mighty) spirit of the angelic people, one coëval and equal, doubtless, with Sauron in their beginnings, but not more? Olórin was his name.

Even if you had provided a rock-solid defense of the letter's intended meaning, which you did not even attempt to do, it would still not have proved that the Witch-King had miraculously been pumped up to the level of a "peer" (to use Tolkien's word) of his master.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

You have completely ignored my argument about the letter, and have yet to provide any support for your opinion from the text.

I would have two things to mention regarding your request.

First, there is the problem of burden of proof. If I understand you correctly, you argue that Zimmerman made, concerning that specific subject, errors of 'theatrical' presentation, of how he related the story, shifting emphasis where it shouldn't, while still being true to the original meaning - as opposed to The 1,000 Reader's interpretation of the text as reffering to errors of what was being reported (therefore, a problem of accuracy primarily, not one of literary impact on the reader). While, in theory, both views are consistent with Tolkien's resentment, it should be noted that the bulk of Z's errors mentioned in the letter are of accuracy:

- inclusion of flags, Gandalf spluttering, contraction of time, Tom as owner of the woods and as 'old scamp', the landlord asking Frodo to register, Aragorn leaving the inn at night, Rivendell similar to Lorien, Aragorn singing the song of Gil-Galad, orcs with beaks and feathers, Galadriel as Elvenqueen, the presence of private 'chambers', hobbits eating 'ridiculously long sandwiches', the spiral staircase of Orthanc, etc.

Most, if not all, of Tolkien's criticism regards problems of accuracy, not merely of 'how' things are related. Tolkien doesn't explicitly say if a specific criticism regards the problem of "how" or the problem of "what" is being told; so both sides share the burden of proof, of presenting evidence outside of the letter that could verify their interpretation. However, if the sheer number of accuracy errors in an indicator, then this was foremost a problem of accuracy, of what was being told, not a problem of literary effect, that is, of how the story was told.

The second aspect is that of false dilemma: even if Tolkien was reffering first and foremost to a literary effect on the reader in that paragraph, that still doesn't exclude the witch-king actually receiving the greater power mentioned in the text. In fact, if he indeed became more powerful, the literary impact on the reader would be more natural and more easy to come by - actual increase would be a means to literary impact (an end).

[alatar]

Don't have my books in front of me, but in Fangorn, when Gandalf confronts the Three Hunters, does he state something about 'unless he were brought in front of the Dark Lord' or something? My take is that, as the White, Gandalf could have equalled Sauron, were he permitted to use force and the dark side as Sauron did, but was bound by the rules.

Why else did Sauon fear Orthanc, though it contained a much smaller army?

Anyway, if Gandalf could be somewhat equal to Sauron, I cannot see how a lesser being on the food chain could be 'brought up' by demonic force or otherwise to this same level. Note that this does not bear on the outcome of a battle, as one never knows what the WK had up its sleeves.

There is no proof the added demonic force would have made the Witch King the equal of Gandalf the White. I have read posts saying the upgraded Witch King was now much more powerful than before - was he? Where does it say in any text that the extra force made him so? Wasn't he still much weaker than when Sauron last had the Ring, & Gandalf at the height of his power? None of it seems to make sense - we have a weakened Sauron who upgrades a weakened Witch King to the same level as Gandalf? All that without the Ring? Not possible. So when the Witch King dies, Sauron becomes weaker again due to the wonderful demonic force of his vanishing into thin air?

I agree with the above post in that the Witch King may not have known the true nature of Gandalf. Calling a balrog slayer an old fool!

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

This is a film treatment, so he knows things will have to be adjusted.

I agree; he hinted at this at the beginning of the letter, when he said "the canons of narrative an in any medium cannot be wholly different".

Originally Posted by obloquy

but why are these issues of accuracy important to Tolkien? ... Many of the items are extremely minor, and don't compromise anything fundamental to the narrative. But they're important because of the impression they make:

He did express irritation (and resentment) for errors varrying from carelessness to the pan of the story being "simply murdered". On many 'details' he also said that are important to him (such as the names of persons).

Concerning the factor of impression and its relation to the actual world the story depicts, I would note that he believes that a successful writer makes a believable story, in which what "he relates is “true”: it accords with the laws of that world" (sorry for the long quote):

Originally Posted by On fairy stories

Children are capable, of course, of literary belief, when the story-maker's art is good enough to produce it. That state of mind has been called “willing suspension of disbelief.” But this does not seem to me a good description of what happens. What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful “sub-creator.” He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is “true”: it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from outside. If you are obliged, by kindliness or circumstance, to stay, then disbelief must be suspended (or stifled), otherwise listening and looking would become intolerable. But this suspension of disbelief is a substitute for the genuine thing, a subterfuge we use when condescending to games or make-believe, or when trying (more or less willingly) to find what virtue we can in the work of an art that has for us failed.

My question would be: why would Tolkien risk producing an impression on his reader (an increase in stature of the witch-king) which is not actually reflected in the reality of that world - esspecially since it would cost him 'nothing' to close that gap and it would be 'necessary' (if I may say so, considering Sauron's desperation)? If this aspect is important (and from the letter it would seem so), why risk having some readers not get it (because it would be based on mere impression, not 'facts') while others would get it, but wouldn't believe it, for lack of actual support? Would anything justify this complication? I believe his interest in plausibility is underline even in this letter, when he underscores the importance of seasons (" The Lord of the Rings may be a 'fairy-story', but it takes place in the Northern hemisphere of this earth: miles are miles, days are days, and weather is weather.")

Originally Posted by obloquy

The real false dilemma is that even if the sentence were proven to be intended the way The 1,000 Reader claims, it does not prove that the Witch-King had been elevated to a level commensurate with his master.

I agree that this quote does not adress their comparative powers at all; I intended to mention that in my post as well, but I forgot from "hand to mouth". In the text, there is, at most - to my knowledge, one other refference (besides Gandalf's 'softness' in regards to Denethor's remarks) which might indicate that Gandalf admits he is overpowered, although it is marred by its generality (emphasis added):

Originally Posted by The White Rider, TTT

I have spoken words of hope. But only of hope. Hope is not victory. War is upon us and all our friends, a war in which only the use of the Ring could give us surety of victory. It fills me with great sorrow and great fear: for much shall be destroyed and all may be lost. I am Gandalf, Gandalf the White, but Black is mightier still.

Originally Posted by obloquy

the note's (putative) claim that the Witch-King was literally enhanced is otherwise uncorroborated

I believe the following could be relevant to our discussion:

Originally Posted by The siege of Gondor

The Nazgul came again, and as their Dark Lord now grew and put forth his strength, so their voices, which uttered only his will and his malice, were filled with evil and horror.

Not definitive, but still, in line with the witch-king uttering words of power that apparently help shatter the city gate, approaching the gate alone and having flames run down his sword.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Raynor

My question would be: why would Tolkien risk producing an impression on his reader (an increase in stature of the witch-king) which is not actually reflected in the reality of that world - esspecially since it would cost him 'nothing' to close that gap and it would be 'necessary' (if I may say so, considering Sauron's desperation)? If this aspect is important (and from the letter it would seem so), why risk having some readers not get it (because it would be based on mere impression, not 'facts') while others would get it, but wouldn't believe it, for lack of actual support? Would anything justify this complication?

Don't forget the nature of the letter. You mention readers who might misinterpret it, but it was originally a letter to an individual; one which Tolkien surely never imagined might be published. He responded to many letters asking questions about his characters, including Sauron, Gandalf, and the Witch-King, in which we would expect him to present clear-cut facts about those characters for the recipients of the letters and whomever they might share them with, but this isn't one of those letters. This is a letter devoted specifically to narrative decisions. I don't necessarily think that any incidental insight it provides ought to be disregarded because of that, but I do think that it gives us additional reason to question Tolkien's choice of words.

You ask why Tolkien would create this impression if it was not representative of the reality. I believe that it was congruent with the reality, but that the reality was merely that the Witch-King now commanded an army in open daylight. That narrative revelation conveys "an added demonic power."

"...Black is mightier still." Indeed! Gandalf was never the dominant force in Middle-earth. That was always Sauron. Whether this quotation refers to Sauron personally (though Sauron was never called Sauron the Black) or Sauron's combined power in Middle-earth is debatable. The greatness of Gandalf's original spirit in relation to Sauron's is actually irrelevant to this quotation since his purpose in Middle-earth was not to go head-to-head with the Dark Lord. It's interesting in itself that extra-LotR texts appear to support that Gandalf and Sauron were peers, but that fact doesn't really shed any light on his analysis of the status of his mission. His mission did not include revealing himself in any mightiness.

Letter #156[Gandalf] is still under the obligation of concealing his power and of teaching rather than forcing or dominating wills, but where the physical powers of the Enemy are too great for the good will of the opposers to be effective he can act in emergency as an "angel"--no more violently than the release of St. Peter from prison. He seldom does so, operating rather through others, but in one or two cases in the War (in Vol. III) he does reveal a sudden power: he twice rescues Faramir. He alone is left to forbid the entrance of the Lord of Nazgul to Minas Tirith, when the City has been overthrown and its Gates destroyed--and yet so powerful is the whole train of human resistance, that he himself has kindled and organized, that in fact no battle between the two occurs: it passes to other mortal hands. In the end before he departs for ever he sums himself up: "I was the enemy of Sauron."

Sauron was his enemy and opposite, but his mission entailed not a duel, but the kindling and guidance of the peoples of Middle-earth in their own defense. When he expressed his uncertainty about his mission, "Black is mightier still," I believe we can safely assume he did not have direct conflict with Sauron in mind.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I would have two things to mention regarding your request.

Thanks for the response.

First, there is the problem of burden of proof. If I understand you correctly, you argue that Zimmerman made, concerning that specific subject, errors of 'theatrical' presentation, of how he related the story, shifting emphasis where it shouldn't, while still being true to the original meaning - as opposed to The 1,000 Reader's interpretation of the text as reffering to errors of what was being reported (therefore, a problem of accuracy primarily, not one of literary impact on the reader).

The 1,000 Reader is claiming that Tolkien says Sauron gave the Witch-King extra power, period. I am saying that that is not exactly what Tolkien says. At most, he allows the reader to draw that conclusion. I am arguing that his letter was referring to the kind of force or power that the author should provide to the Witch-King in Vol. III, vs. how he is presented earlier on.

it should be noted that the bulk of Z's errors mentioned in the letter are of accuracy:

You're right, but why are these issues of accuracy important to Tolkien? This is a film treatment, so he knows things will have to be adjusted. Many of the items are extremely minor, and don't compromise anything fundamental to the narrative. But they're important because of the impression they make: the Balrog laughing or sneering, for example, or Gandalf "spluttering." It does not affect the tale being told for these two characters to behave in these ways, but it does affect their air of dignity, i.e. the impression of their dignity on the reader.

Most, if not all, of Tolkien's criticism regards problems of accuracy, not merely of 'how' things are related. Tolkien doesn't explicitly say if a specific criticism regards the problem of "how" or the problem of "what" is being told; so both sides share the burden of proof, of presenting evidence outside of the letter that could verify their interpretation.

I allow the possibility that Tolkien meant the note to be interpreted how The 1,000 Reader chooses to interpret it, even though I think he could have worded it more clearly if that was his intention. The 1,000 Reader is the one claiming there is no question.

However, if the sheer number of accuracy errors in an indicator, then this was foremost a problem of accuracy, of what was being told, not a problem of literary effect, that is, of how the story was told.

I disagree, and reiterate that many of the errors in accuracy are only important because they compromise Tolkien's intended effect, mood, air, etc. There will be modifications to a story that is to be made into a film: errors in accuracy, in other words. Many of these that Tolkien has chosen to pick on are particularly egregious because they make his characters (whether Gandalf or Hobbits or Rivendell) seem different than he intended.

Tolkien says "[The Witch-King] must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III." Raised by whom? Is Tolkien saying "he must not" because he is drawing conclusions based on evidence (e.g. "he must not be as powerful as he is later since he seems to be unable to defeat Gandalf."), or is he urging that Zimmerman must not yet raise the Witch-King to that level? Similarly, in the next sentence, Tolkien says "There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force." He is obviously put in command by Sauron, but who has given him "an added demonic force" is not as clear. Tolkien could have said "There, given added demonic force by Sauron, he is put in command." The impression would even be more clear if Tolkien had written "There, put in command by Sauron, he is then given added demonic force." Instead, Tolkien does not make it clear that Sauron is giving anything to W-K but command. He even includes the indefinite article "an" which changes the impression of that "demonic force" from something specific that Sauron might have to give, to something amorphous that is, more likely, simply an aspect of the Witch-King's appearance at that time. Which brings me again to the point that "demonic force" is not Middle-earth vocabulary, and gives the impression that Tolkien is speaking of literary intent rather than a Middle-earth fact.

The second aspect is that of false dilemma: even if Tolkien was reffering first and foremost to a literary effect on the reader in that paragraph, that still doesn't exclude the witch-king actually receiving the greater power mentioned in the text. In fact, if he indeed became more powerful, the literary impact on the reader would be more natural and more easy to come by - actual increase would be a means to literary impact (an end).

Or he becomes more powerful in the reader's eyes simply by receiving supreme command of the siege on Minas Tirith. That's my impression. The real false dilemma is that even if the sentence were proven to be intended the way The 1,000 Reader claims, it does not prove that the Witch-King had been elevated to a level commensurate with his master.

Edit: I think I've made my point as well as I can. In fact, I'm repeating myself in my efforts to clarify my argument. Still, one last P.S. before I rest my case: the note's (putative) claim that the Witch-King was literally enhanced is otherwise uncorroborated. It exists only in an obscure note to a script writer and clearly (as I hope I have shown above) could have been meant as an expression of narrative choices rather than further (and very important!) info on the nature of the Witch-King. Whereas other individuals who received genuine enhancement of power (Gandalf and Glorfindel, for example) have narrative accounts or essays--with (and this is crucial) the history of Middle-earth as the topic rather than narrative decisions--that express the fact explicitly. And that's all that I think I can say about the letter.

As for the Witch-King being an equal match for Gandalf (which really is an issue independent of the debated note), I'll argue that until I'm blue in the face, or until I get banned again.

[Essex]

I really hate stepping back into this argument again (oh no I don't) - I'm repeating myself as well, as much as anybody.

But here's my succinct and well thought out argument on whether Movie or Book Witch King (and remember we're meant to be discussing the movie here!)could 'take Gandalf out' or 'own Gandalf' etc.




David slew Goliath




PS and to add, in post script, about Gandalf saying 'no weapon could kill me' and explaining how great he was to anyone who would listen. That's HIS opinion. Who's to say he's right in everything he says? He's no doubt a clever fella, but he's not the Pope.


PPS to you non Christian's out there I mean he's not infallible


PPPS - I swear this is true - As I finished editing my post and went back to the main page, look what quote was at the top of the screen....

"Old Fool! Old Fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain! - Lord of the Nazgûl"

This vindicates my opinion entirely!!!!!!! It MUST be true - Tolkien sent me a message from Beyond the Grave. The Witch King can whip Gandalf's butt!

[alatar]

I knew that you could not long resists this, Essex.

Regardless of the books, PJ watered down the Gandalf character in more ways than just his resistance to Witch-King spookings. This was to make Aragorn seem more heroic and more in control, and so you know what question that begs...

[obloquy]

David slew Goliath

I don't see how this can have any relevance here. It is not some inspirational story of the insignificant overcoming the mighty, as you seem to think. 1 Samuel 17:45 (KJV):

45 Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied.

46 This day will the LORD deliver thee into mine hand; and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee; and I will give the carcases of the host of the Philistines this day unto the fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel.

Victory over Goliath belonged to God, not to David personally. David's success was miraculous, achieved only because David was the agent performing God's will. If the Witch-King came to Gandalf in the name of Eru then sure, I'd put my money on him. The idea is ludicrous, though.

There is no analogy here. The lesson we learn from the story of David and Goliath is exactly the opposite of the one you attribute to it: you assign credit to David, when the whole point is that David was God's agent and God defeated Goliath. Furthermore, even if we accept your argument as having any significant relation to Middle-earth, Eru God is expressly on Gandalf's side, so unless you think it was possible for Goliath to defeat David against God's will, your "succent" (??) argument is revealed to be in full support of my opinion and in direct contradiction to yours.

Edit: Wait, did you seriously imply that the Pope is infallible? That makes me wonder if posting in response to someone so oblivious to facts and reason is really a good idea.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Victory over Goliath belonged to God, not to David personally. David's success was miraculous, achieved only because David was the agent performing God's will. If the Witch-King came to Gandalf in the name of Eru then sure, I'd put my money on him. The idea is ludicrous, though.

Crazy, as you say, but the point being made is that sometimes, when Eru is on your side or you just get lucky and roll that '20,' the unlikely happens.

There is no analogy here. The lesson we learn from the story of David and Goliath is exactly the opposite of the one you attribute to it: you assign credit to David, when the whole point is that David was God's agent and God defeated Goliath. Furthermore, even if we accept your argument as having any significant relation to Middle-earth, Eru God is expressly on Gandalf's side, so unless you think it was possible for Goliath to defeat David against God's will, your "succent" (??) argument is revealed to be in full support of my opinion and in direct contradiction to yours.

Interesting point. But even David had his bad days and suffered losses, though surely God was 'on his side.' Eru obviously lets the dark side win now and again; why not this day? The ways of Him who shaped Arda are not our ways, and there's that mysterious way of working thing too.

Edit: Wait, did you seriously imply that the Pope is infallible? That makes me wonder if posting in response to someone so oblivious to facts and reason is really a good idea.

I think we are to read between the lines a bit, as we all seem capable of doing, when we read Essex's words. Again I assume that he was just using words to convey an idea in a way many (but not all) may understand. And note that, after having posted all of my serious and heated posts on this issue beforehand, most likely I will only be able to 'unsay' whatever I'd said before, not having the need to post as vehemently as I did when RotK:EE first came out.

[Essex]

Originally Posted by obloquy

I don't see how this can have any relevance here. It is not some inspirational story of the insignificant overcoming the mighty, as you seem to think.

OK - let me give you another anlaogy.

Hereford beat Newcastle in the FA Cup in 1972

wait, did you seriously imply that the Pope is infallible? That makes me wonder if posting in response to someone so oblivious to facts and reason is really a good idea.

maybe I should have put a few smiley faces on the post. I was trying to have a laugh but didn't realise I had to put bells and whistles around it to explain the humour!!! But to explain my points

1/ Giant killings take place.
2/ Tolkien's Middle-earth is not 'black and white'
3/ If a character says something, do we take that as 'Cannon' or just their opinion?

a few funny faces to complete my post..............