Sauron vs. Your Mama - A Discussion of Power in Middle-earth

[obloquy]

That's a load of bull. Essex alone has produced enough texts to show that Gandalf wouldn't have won with ease, and your opinion is drastically effecting what you see as a "compelling arguement." I still remember you manipulating a quote from the books in an attempt to mislead me a year ago, so forgive me if your credibility is not so good in my view.

Essex has provided exactly zero arguments for anything. His entire existence seems to be dedicated to declaring as annoyingly as possible that the weak can overcome the mighty, and yet his most cogent argument to that effect to date is some soccer game that happened decades ago. And please be more specific about this text I supposedly manipulated to deceive you.

As fine and comprehensive as Boromir's post is, Sauron doesn't need his help. Sauron was Morgoth's greatest servant, period. The Witch-King derived any power he ever had from Sauron: the servant is not greater than the master. Any criticism of Sauron's vicious record is ignorant Witch-King fanboy fantasy.

Anyway, I'm tired of repeating myself about things that any old chump can figure out with a little research in Tolkien's published writings. If you're only in this thread to fight with me about who is awesomer, please respond to my post in the movies forum.

[davem]

Unless I'm misunderstanding the original post, there seems to be an assumption that the physical forms of Gandalf & the Balrog (or The Witch King for that matter) are of the same nature. I don't think this can simply be assumed - Gandalf has a physical body not unlike that of the Children - it ages for one thing. The 'physicality' of the Balrog is of a different order - 'shadow & flame'. Obviously the Balrog has some degree of physicality - it can hold things, fall down chasms etc, but it doesn't seem to be an 'Incarnate' in the same sense as a Human or Elf. The Witch King is physically invisible (in the natural world at least) so his hroa is also fundamentally different to that of other incarnates.

Oh, & Shelob isn't a 'big fat spider' she is 'an evil thing in spider form' - which probably supports your argument in a way....

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Gandalf has a physical body not unlike that of the Children - it ages for one thing.

I agree (empahsis added):

Originally Posted by The Istari, Unfinished Tales

For with the consent of Eru they sent members of their own high order, but clad in bodies of as of Men, real and not feigned, but subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain; though because of their noble spirits they did not die, and aged only by the cares and labours of many long years.

Originally Posted by davem

Obviously the Balrog has some degree of physicality - it can hold things, fall down chasms etc, but it doesn't seem to be an 'Incarnate' in the same sense as a Human or Elf.

Ditto

Originally Posted by The White Rider, TTT

Thither I came at last, to the uttermost foundations of stone. He was with me still. His fire was quenched, but now he was a thing of slime, stronger than a strangling snake.

[Thenamir]

Allow me to digress away from pure Tolkiana for a moment to make a point that will hopefully steer (or drag) this thread back on-topic.

Many years ago in my ill-spent youth, I was acquainted with several friends who were avid Dungeons & Dragons players, though I myself never found the time to become proficient at it. One friend in particular had over time built up a mighty warrior character – strong, skilled, equipped with high-powered weaponry and armor, an extremely able fighter who was darn near invincible. The player was naturally proud and somewhat cocky about his avatar. Which goaded his fellow-players into trying to figure out a way of bringing his character down.

For one game a fellow-player generated a pair of very small characters, probably hobbits or something like, endowing almost their entire allotment of skill-points into speed and dexterity – minimal strength, minimal intelligence, and all of 1 hit-point – meaning a single touch from an opponent would kill them. At the appropriate moment, the fellow-player loosed these nearly-disposable characters upon Mr. High-and-mighty. To all appearances the fight looked to be over before it had begun.

What happened next nearly brings tears of laughter to my eyes even now. The little annoyance characters positioned themselves on opposite sides of the warrior. Their speed and dexterity was such that they made every evasion dice-roll whenever the warrior tried to slice one of them, but their positions made it impossible for him to try to attack them both at once. One would dodge, the other would attack. While the warrior was facing one of the hobbits, the other would use his speed and agility to come in and strike the warrior from behind. They only inflicted a tiny bit of damage with each hit, but they hit nearly every time they tried. The cocky player went from amused, to concerned, to frustrated, to livid as the throwaway hobbits slowly, gradually weakened and ultimately felled the mighty warrior in clean battle. And absolutely priceless was the look on his face as he stormed away from the table muttering “I can’t believe it! I just can’t believe it!”

I guess what I’m trying to point out here is that there is much more to sizing up a battle than the obvious accoutrements of size, strength and “spiritual power”. There are intangibles that are not always obvious to an outside observer. As has been said, it ain’t the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog. I think the Wise at the Council of Elrond realized that it was outwardly folly to send a pint-sized pastoral peasant into the enemy’s home court with a veritable homing-beacon hung around his neck, but we all know who won in the end. They realized that there were factors working on their side that didn't even enter into the mind of their enemy, and worked those factors to their advantage.

As far as Gandalf-vs-Witch-King is concerned, I think even Gandalf was unsure.

Originally Posted by FotR, Many Meetings

'There are many powers in the world, for good or for evil. Some are greater than I am. Against some I have not yet been measured. But my time is coming. The Morgul-lord and his Black Riders have come forth. War is preparing!'

It seems to me here that Gandalf is specifically saying that he knows the Morgul Lord is powerful, but does not yet know how he will measure up in a direct confrontation.

To say that Gandalf does not flinch when the confrontation finally occurs says more to me about Gandalf's resolve, not so much his confidence in victory. Gandalf knows he is where he needs to be, doing what he is required to do, and is calm in that knowledge, whatever the outcome. Personally, I would have loved to see a bit of a scrap between them before the horns of Rohan call him away, but alas, such was not to be. As Treebeard said to Gandalf at the end,

Originally Posted by Treebeard

‘Well, come now!’ he said. ‘You have proved mightiest, and all your labours have gone well.'

But he could not say this until Gandalf had been tried and found victorious.

Just my two cents worth.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by davem

Unless I'm misunderstanding the original post, there seems to be an assumption that the physical forms of Gandalf & the Balrog (or The Witch King for that matter) are of the same nature. I don't think this can simply be assumed - Gandalf has a physical body not unlike that of the Children - it ages for one thing. The 'physicality' of the Balrog is of a different order - 'shadow & flame'. Obviously the Balrog has some degree of physicality - it can hold things, fall down chasms etc, but it doesn't seem to be an 'Incarnate' in the same sense as a Human or Elf. The Witch King is physically invisible (in the natural world at least) so his hroa is also fundamentally different to that of other incarnates.

Oh, & Shelob isn't a 'big fat spider' she is 'an evil thing in spider form' - which probably supports your argument in a way....

I don't think the Balrog's hroa is different than Gandalf's. We don't have any text saying that Balrogs were incarnate, but there are good arguments for the case. The most compelling is the fact that those Balrogs who were slain in the First Age (Gothmog and Glorfindel's Bane, at the very least) never resurface to cause more trouble, and Gandalf's slaying of Durin's Bane appears to be quite final. Had these Maiar been merely clothed--embodied but less than incarnate--they would have been capable of taking a new shape when they were "slain." The Balrog's "shadow and flame" does not indicate that he is more ephemeral in hroa than Gandalf, only that he exerts his power in a visible display. It's something Gandalf would be capable of doing if he chose to disobey the guidelines for his mission. For example, that lightning and ice on the peak was surely Gandalf's doing and not the Balrog's, both being antithetical to the Balrog's spiritual nature.

You're right to draw distinctions between simply "clothed" spirits and incarnate ones, and the topic of the Balrogs is open to debate. After all, if they were less than incarnate then there's no need to wonder if they had wings: they could have had them when they chose to. It just seems more likely that Balrogs, like their master and Sauron, had become permanently incarnated. Aiwendil also recently reminded me that the incarnation of the Balrogs is not a fact made explicit by Tolkien, and he's right, but here's part of my response to him:

Additionally we recognize the affinity Tolkien's mythos have with biblical stories of the corruption of angels to the service of the devil. In those stories the angels were corrupted not just by affiliating themselves with Satan, but by indulging in activities that were reserved for true incarnates, particularly sex relations. While this is not evidence in itself, Tolkien makes the specific point that an eala could become bound to its hroa by habitual indulgence in such activities (he specifies eating and begetting offspring), and it seems unreasonable to presume that these corrupted Maiar (who were said to be corrupted by dark gifts, if I remember correctly) would have abstained more assiduously than their masters.

---

Invisibility also does not indicate a fundamentally different hroa. Bilbo and Frodo both became invisible for a time and were yet never changed from their incarnate nature. The invisibility of the Ringwraiths may be different than that conferred by The One Ring, but still the Ringwraiths are not disembodied fear. They are Men by nature, so the destruction of the hroa results in death. Sauron obviously did something really twisted with them, but there's no indication that they ever died (and thus are not necromantic); they appear simply to have faded into their LotR state, meaning that they are still merely Men.

[obloquy]

Great post, Thenamir. I'm really glad to see you paying attention to The Books again.

[davem]

I still think we are dealing with different kinds or states of Hroa - some 'natural', some magically enhanced; some 'set' (as with the Eruhini & the Istari) & some more 'plastic'. There is no reason to assume all 'hroa' are of the same physical nature. H2O may be variously solid (ice), liquid (water) or gaseous (steam) in various circumstances. It changes easily - which could be the case with the Balrog's hroa (as seems likely to me). The Witch-King's hroa seems different to that of Frodo & Bilbo - for one thing its sinews are 'magically' knitted together by spells. I didn't argue that the WK was 'hroa-less' merely that his hroa was of a different nature to what it had been before he took service of Sauron & received a Ring.

[obloquy]

It's a tempting concept, but Tolkien never gave any more detail than discarnate, "clothed", and incarnate. There's every indication that the final incarnate stage of an eala is the same corporeal state that the Children are born in. The differences in hroa that you describe would not be out of place in the "clothed" category, but the Istari, Melian, Sauron, and Morgoth (our concrete examples of fully incarnate ealar) all apparently ended up exactly like the Children. They could no longer conceal their evil through manipulation of their hroar (in Sauron's and Morgoth's cases), and they were powerless without hroar. Shapeshifting doesn't seem to be possible for any incarnate being, regardless of original nature. If a Balrog changed shape, he must have been merely "clothed" and not incarnate; but if he was only deprived of a physical raiment rather than truly slain, then Gandalf's sacrifice was vanity.

(I have not forgotten about Beorn, but he is somewhat anomalous, at least as mysterious as Tom Bombadil, if not more. Additionally, he comes from a time when Tolkien's concept of embodied spirits did not include a "clothed" provision, and were either discarnate or incarnate.)

[davem]

Originally Posted by obloquy

(I have not forgotten about Beorn, but he is somewhat anomalous, at least as mysterious as Tom Bombadil, if not more. Additionally, he comes from a time when Tolkien's concept of embodied spirits did not include a "clothed" provision, and were either discarnate or incarnate.)

Now, not feeling up to scanning through HoM-e I'm going to be depending on you for the answer to this question, but what period are we talking about in terms of Tolkien's thoughts on the 'discarnate, "clothed", and incarnate' alternatives - were these thoughts in place during the writing of LotR? If we look at the Chronology of the HoM-e texts here don't we see these ideas belonging to the post LotR period? And so, isn't Tolkien 'writing back' into LotR? I think its clear, for instance, that the ideas on mental communication as set out in Osanwe Kenta were not developed when Tolkien had Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel & Celeborn communicating telepathically in 'Homeward Bound'. Were Tolkien's ideas on the relationship of fea to hroa fully developed when he was writing LotR - & if not, can we apply them 'backwards' to events in LotR?

BTW, this is a genuine question, as I say, not having HoM-e immediately to hand...