Gandalf's Staff - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Folwren · 02-08-2006, 12:58 PM

Does it say that he didn't use his staff while breaking Saruman's staff? Let me grab the book. . .

Hm. It says that he 'raised his hand' and nothing else. And yet. . .you'd think that with such a thing happening, Saruman's power being taken from him and then the staff being broken, that Tolkien wouldn't have made a mistake while concerning with Gandalf's staff.

I don't know.

-- Folwren

JennyHallu · 02-08-2006, 01:27 PM

Perhaps the staff, like the One Ring, is a repository for some of the power of the Istari, as well as a symbol of office. After all, both Sauron and the Istari were supposed to have been Maiar, and perhaps physical repositories for metaphysical power were not uncommon among those people.

The breaking of Gandalf's staff fighting the Balrog may have been a sign that he had had to use all of the power he had stored there (for easy retrieval, perhaps) was used in the conflict, and he had to fight with power from his own person. The replacement of his staff upon his return to Middle-Earth could have simply been intended as an outward symbol of his new status as the Head of the Order. Notice that where up to that point most of Gandalf's displays of power were done by use of the staff (the fire on Caradhras for example, and the light in Moria) he was much less dependent upon it after his fall and rededication, but he still used it occasionally, and not when he was fighting very sophisticated deviltry (i.e. In the hall of Theoden King, casting down Grima's mental, not magical, influence)

And after Gandalf breaks Saruman's staff, Saruman's power is not negated. Weakened, yes, which would follow being rather dependent on a staff that had had millenia to absorb power, but even without his staff he was still capable of wreaking terrible havoc in the Shire...

Just a thought...

Roa_Aoife · 02-08-2006, 07:20 PM

Jenny, have you ever read Talking to Dragons? The wizard staffs in that are exactly as you describe. (I love that series by the way.

)

I'm glad my analogy could be helpful, so here's another. Think of a light bulb. Alone, in and of itself, it cannot create light. It requires electricity, Electricity, on the other hand, needs the light bulb to make it useable. However, when you suddenly throw 400 watts through a 60 watt bulb, it explodes. That's what I think happened to Gandalf's staff on the Bridge. The massive power surge Gandalf used on the bridge overwhelmed the conduit.

Saruman's staff exploding can be explained in the same way. Gandalf merely sent a massive power surge through the staff, causing it to break. He just sent the surge through a different conduit. Like lightening striking a different lightening rod.

EDIT:As for why Saruman was weakened and not powerless after this, he lacked the ability to focus his power into a useful force. Going back to the light energy analogy, it's the difference between flourescent light bulbs and a laser beam.

JennyHallu · 02-08-2006, 09:40 PM

Honestly, I have no clue if I've read that before. Years ago, I lost any chance of keeping up with my own reading habits. Is that the series by Patricia Wrede?

I simply thought that if the Istari are Maiar, then they don't need the staffs. But they undoubtedly mean something, and the Istari undoubtedly use them in some way, related to their power. As a channel, and maybe a capacitor (electrical thingamabob that stores power), that made sense to me.

Glirdan · 02-08-2006, 09:51 PM

Hmmm, this is really reminding me of the last play that Shakespear ever wrote: The Tempest. Here's the general idea of what happened. The Duke of Milan was usurped by his evil twin and the King of Naples. He and his daughter were put aboard a rickety old ship and cast out to sea. However (this is the most important part), Gonazalo, the King's advisor, gave Prospero (the Duke) books and he had a staff. From the books, he learned magical abilities so to speak, which would represents his knowledge of the magic. The staff represented his way of controlling that magic. Sound kind of familiar?

I believe that the same thing applies with Gandalf and Saruman. The staff breaks, the magic is broken. Because Gandalf put so much power into breaking the bridge of Moria and the fact that the staff broke signifies (in my opinion) that he lost his magic. All his energy was spent on defeating the Balrog and because he didn't have his magic to aid him, he "died".

Roa_Aoife · 02-08-2006, 10:01 PM

I can see where you're coming from, Glirdan, but I think you have it a bit backwards. The staff's breaking doesn't make the power dissapate; it just becomes less accessable. Gandalf wasn't killed by the Balrog right away, either in the books or in the movies. Even after his staff was broken, he continued to put up a good fight, and he won before he died. I would say that the effort of focusing his magic with out his staff, especially after the massive surge that broke the bridge, took it's toll on his physical body.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glirdan

The staff represented his way of controlling that magic.

Exactly, it's the method of control, not the magic itself. The staff just makes it easier to direct the power into something viable. Staff is to power as OS is to Computer, so to speak.

davem · 02-09-2006, 03:32 AM

I suspect that a magical object like a staff is in some ways like the taking on of a physical form. None of the Maiar actually need to incarnate, but it enables them to function better in the physical universe.

The same seems to be true of Elves, but in the opposite way - their fea will eventually (in Middle-earth at least) burn away their hroa & they will exist as beings of spirit only. To what extent a wizard's staff can be seen as an 'extension' of his physical form is an interesting question. To lose a staff may be equivalent to losing a limb - it wouldn't finish you off, but it would severely disable you. It may be that Gandalf was powerfull enough without his staff to perform certain magical acts, but clearly it is useful in extreme circumstances. Or maybe its just easier to use a staff & means less energy is expended in the particular act. I'm not sure there's anything a wizard could do with a staff that he couldn't do without it, but at the same time one could ''charge' it with so much power, or become so dependent on doing magic with it, that without it one became virtually helpless.

It reminds me of Julian May's 'Saga of the Exiles', where the aliens have latent psychic abilities which they activate by using artifical devices (torcs). These necklaces give them great powers but in the end actually prevent them developing their abilities naturally. Anything they could do with the torcs they could have learned to do without them, but they chose the short cut of technology.

Perhaps this is another subtle condemnation of the Machine on Tolkien's part - as he stated magic is another manifestation of the Machine, not something qualitatively different.

02-08-2006, 12:58 PM	#1
Folwren Messenger of Hope Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a tiny, insignificant little town in one of the many States. Posts: 5,076	Does it say that he didn't use his staff while breaking Saruman's staff? Let me grab the book. . . Hm. It says that he 'raised his hand' and nothing else. And yet. . .you'd think that with such a thing happening, Saruman's power being taken from him and then the staff being broken, that Tolkien wouldn't have made a mistake while concerning with Gandalf's staff. I don't know. -- Folwren __________________ A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. - C.S. Lewis

02-08-2006, 01:27 PM	#2
JennyHallu The Pearl, The Lily Maid Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In my luxury Barrow, snuggled up in a pile of satin pillows, eating fresh fruit. Posts: 1,628	Perhaps the staff, like the One Ring, is a repository for some of the power of the Istari, as well as a symbol of office. After all, both Sauron and the Istari were supposed to have been Maiar, and perhaps physical repositories for metaphysical power were not uncommon among those people. The breaking of Gandalf's staff fighting the Balrog may have been a sign that he had had to use all of the power he had stored there (for easy retrieval, perhaps) was used in the conflict, and he had to fight with power from his own person. The replacement of his staff upon his return to Middle-Earth could have simply been intended as an outward symbol of his new status as the Head of the Order. Notice that where up to that point most of Gandalf's displays of power were done by use of the staff (the fire on Caradhras for example, and the light in Moria) he was much less dependent upon it after his fall and rededication, but he still used it occasionally, and not when he was fighting very sophisticated deviltry (i.e. In the hall of Theoden King, casting down Grima's mental, not magical, influence) And after Gandalf breaks Saruman's staff, Saruman's power is not negated. Weakened, yes, which would follow being rather dependent on a staff that had had millenia to absorb power, but even without his staff he was still capable of wreaking terrible havoc in the Shire... Just a thought... __________________ <=== Lookee, lookee, lots of IM handles!

02-08-2006, 07:20 PM	#3
Roa_Aoife Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Someday, I'll rule all of it. Posts: 1,696	Jenny, have you ever read Talking to Dragons? The wizard staffs in that are exactly as you describe. (I love that series by the way. ) I'm glad my analogy could be helpful, so here's another. Think of a light bulb. Alone, in and of itself, it cannot create light. It requires electricity, Electricity, on the other hand, needs the light bulb to make it useable. However, when you suddenly throw 400 watts through a 60 watt bulb, it explodes. That's what I think happened to Gandalf's staff on the Bridge. The massive power surge Gandalf used on the bridge overwhelmed the conduit. Saruman's staff exploding can be explained in the same way. Gandalf merely sent a massive power surge through the staff, causing it to break. He just sent the surge through a different conduit. Like lightening striking a different lightening rod. EDIT:As for why Saruman was weakened and not powerless after this, he lacked the ability to focus his power into a useful force. Going back to the light energy analogy, it's the difference between flourescent light bulbs and a laser beam. __________________ We can't all be Roas* when it comes to analysing...* -Lommy I didn't say you're evil, Roa, I said you're exasperating. -Nerwen Last edited by Roa_Aoife; 02-08-2006 at 07:49 PM.

02-08-2006, 09:40 PM	#4
JennyHallu The Pearl, The Lily Maid Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In my luxury Barrow, snuggled up in a pile of satin pillows, eating fresh fruit. Posts: 1,628	Honestly, I have no clue if I've read that before. Years ago, I lost any chance of keeping up with my own reading habits. Is that the series by Patricia Wrede? I simply thought that if the Istari are Maiar, then they don't need the staffs. But they undoubtedly mean something, and the Istari undoubtedly use them in some way, related to their power. As a channel, and maybe a capacitor (electrical thingamabob that stores power), that made sense to me. __________________ <=== Lookee, lookee, lots of IM handles!

02-08-2006, 09:51 PM	#5
Glirdan Energetic Essence Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Where Lark Nor Eagle Ever Flew Posts: 3,285	Hmmm, this is really reminding me of the last play that Shakespear ever wrote: *The Tempest. Here's the general idea of what happened. The Duke of Milan was usurped by his evil twin and the King of Naples. He and his daughter were put aboard a rickety old ship and cast out to sea. However (this is the most important part), Gonazalo, the King's advisor, gave Prospero (the Duke) books and he had a staff. From the books, he learned magical abilities so to speak, which would represents his knowledge of the magic. The staff represented his way of controlling that magic. Sound kind of familiar? I believe that the same thing applies with Gandalf and Saruman. The staff breaks, the magic is broken. Because Gandalf put so much power into breaking the bridge of Moria and the fact that the staff broke signifies (in my opinion) that he lost his magic. All his energy was spent on defeating the Balrog and because he didn't have his magic to aid him, he "died". __________________ I'm going to buy you a kitty, I'm going to let you fall in love with the kitty, and one cold, winter night, I'm going to steal into your house and punch you in the face!* Fenris Wolf

02-09-2006, 03:32 AM	#7
davem Illustrious Ulair Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties Posts: 4,240	I suspect that a magical object like a staff is in some ways like the taking on of a physical form. None of the Maiar actually need to incarnate, but it enables them to function better in the physical universe. The same seems to be true of Elves, but in the opposite way - their fea will eventually (in Middle-earth at least) burn away their hroa & they will exist as beings of spirit only. To what extent a wizard's staff can be seen as an 'extension' of his physical form is an interesting question. To lose a staff may be equivalent to losing a limb - it wouldn't finish you off, but it would severely disable you. It may be that Gandalf was powerfull enough without his staff to perform certain magical acts, but clearly it is useful in extreme circumstances. Or maybe its just easier to use a staff & means less energy is expended in the particular act. I'm not sure there's anything a wizard could do with a staff that he couldn't do without it, but at the same time one could ''charge' it with so much power, or become so dependent on doing magic with it, that without it one became virtually helpless. It reminds me of Julian May's 'Saga of the Exiles', where the aliens have latent psychic abilities which they activate by using artifical devices (torcs). These necklaces give them great powers but in the end actually prevent them developing their abilities naturally. Anything they could do with the torcs they could have learned to do without them, but they chose the short cut of technology. Perhaps this is another subtle condemnation of the Machine on Tolkien's part - as he stated magic is another manifestation of the Machine, not something qualitatively different. __________________ “Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects."