Gandalf Vs. The Witch King

[obloquy]

There is far more evidence to support Gandalf and Sauron's equal stature than there is to the contrary. I won't go into it again here, but I'll provide some links for further research:

Here and here can be found the most important elements to the argument. Near the end of the first thread is a wonderful piece of research by gorthaur_cruel, but its date (1956) and incongruence with the bulk of Tolkien's writing render it all but useless, much like the Fall of Gondolin is for Balrog discussions.

Additionally, Sauron during the War of the Ring can be considered far weaker than he was in his original form, since he was not in possession of a large portion of his power (though he is said to be in "rapport" with it at all times), and he was also incarnate, having "died" several times already. Gandalf was, of course, limited similarly, but the point is that both were.

It's literally.

You sound pretty positive. Maybe you could share your iron-clad evidence for this assertion?

When placed in command of the armies, he was given "An added demonic force."

So Sauron doles out some extra "demonic force" to his servants from time to time? Why now? Why not before the Nazgul went to The Shire, and why didn't they all receive some? This isn't even Middle-earth vocabulary: "demonic force" is a reference to the impression a reader gets from the Witch-King, not something Sauron is capable of dispensing.

The Witch-King, even with all his buddies, would not challenge the power of ring-bearing Galadriel. Gandalf had a Ring of Power, too, and was even greater in innate power than Galadriel. The Witch-King had fled from Glorfindel (see Appendix A), and yet Glorfindel, even after his enhancement through reincarnation, is said to be almost an equal to the Maiar. How, please, could a mere Man (originally mighty, perhaps, but certainly not even one of the greatest of the Atani) who was hopelessly enslaved to Sauron approach this kind of spiritual power? The answer is that he could not, and I have never seen any shred of evidence to support the idea.

Edit: Great post, mansun!

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Additionally, Sauron during the War of the Ring can be considered far weaker than he was in his original form, since he was not in possession of a large portion of his power (though he is said to be in "rapport" with it at all times), and he was also incarnate, having "died" several times already. Gandalf was, of course, limited similarly, but the point is that both were.

That doesn't really say who was stronger. It just says that both weren't at the 100% they were at in the beginning.

Originally Posted by obloquy

You sound pretty positive. Maybe you could share your iron-clad evidence for this assertion?

It's right in the book dude. The quote was provided on the last page.

Originally Posted by obloquy

So Sauron doles out some extra "demonic force" to his servants from time to time? Why now?

Apparently, Sauron cared more of the war than his ring at that time.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Why not before the Nazgul went to The Shire, and why didn't they all receive some?

Likely because their strength would have gotten the attention of the elves or an Istari, who would rally up the people or something of that sort.

Originally Posted by obloquy

This isn't even Middle-earth vocabulary: "demonic force" is a reference to the impression a reader gets from the Witch-King, not something Sauron is capable of dispensing.

It's a literal force. The book even says that when Sauron appoints him as the leader of the host assaulting Minas Tirith that he's given an added demonic force, and he does appear more powerful than he was in earlier confrontations. It is not an impression like fear: it's specifically stated to be an added demonic force.

Originally Posted by obloquy

The Witch-King, even with all his buddies, would not challenge the power of ring-bearing Galadriel.

That's because Galadriel was very mighty (in the magical arts at the very least) and she had an entire realm of warrior elves at her disposal. Also, Dol Guldur, which was commanded by Khamul the Easterling, assaulted Lothlorien three times: the Nazgul did attempt to defeat her.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Gandalf had a Ring of Power, too, and was even greater in innate power than Galadriel. The Witch-King had fled from Glorfindel (see Appendix A), and yet Glorfindel, even after his enhancement through reincarnation, is said to be almost an equal to the Maiar. How, please, could a mere Man (originally mighty, perhaps, but certainly not even one of the greatest of the Atani) who was hopelessly enslaved to Sauron approach this kind of spiritual power?

The Witch-King was skilled with the magical arts, likely was a great warrior, destroyed Arnor, and in the siege of Minas Tirith was given additional power. Gandalf clearly was not passing the situation off as a minor detail or something casual, and as I've said before, being a Maia, while somewhat of an advantage, is not a clear-cut victory. The higher-ranked beings of Middle-Earth have lost countless times. Even if Gandalf was wise to those events, that does not mean that he was assured victory due to his origin.

Originally Posted by obloquy

The answer is that he could not, and I have never seen any shred of evidence to support the idea.

That is only your opinion in the end, and the scene in the book where Gandalf met the Witch-King at the gates of Minas Tirith was most definitely not a confrontation where one combatant was depicted with any sort of strength over the other. Indeed, if the Professor gave one of the two any sort of visible edge, the whole point of the scene would be void. The scene was not to tell us that Gandalf would be a safety-blanket or that the Witch-King was about to whup him to the moon: it was to build tension and have us be unsure of who'd win.

I grow tired of debating this subject, so unless you want to press the matter on, I'll stay away from this discussion.

The fact that the Witch King withdrew at the gate as Gandalf challenged him means that Gandalf did win. The Witch King effectively threw in the towel as though this battle was no longer for him. I don't remember the Balrog withdrawing when confronted by the entire Company - it knew it could defeat any of them with it's power. That's how it is as the books are concerned.

As I have said in many previous posts, PJ should have made the Witch King something like as hulking a foe as the Balrog in appearance to show that his power had been upgraded. Some of that crackling electrical energy would have done the trick. As far as the films go, the Witch King won, all because of some nitwit script writers. This was not all PJs fault - if you listen to the commentary for this part, the two ladies speaking appear to be responsible for this ridiculous scene. Gandalf was nearly blown to smithereens through one bolt of fire by the Witch King! Now who on earth would have honestly wanted that to happen in the film?!

[obloquy]

It's right in the book dude. The quote was provided on the last page.

I'm aware of what's in the book; perhaps more aware than you'd like me to be. I do not contest the fact that Tolkien wrote this, I contest how it is being interpreted. The letter in question is a point-by-point critique of the unproduced M.G. Zimmerman film treatment of LotR. Tolkien explains not only the flaws in Zimmerman's revisions, but also the intended effect of his writing choices. The letter is not in answer to questions about the nature of the Witch-King's power at different points in the story; rather, it is an exploration of Tolkien's literary intentions. I'll reproduce the paragraph in full here, since its previous quotation in this thread deprived it of context:

9. Leaving the inn at night and running off into the dark is an impossible solution of the difficulties of presentation here (which I can see). It is the last thing that Aragorn would have done. It is based on a misconception of the Black Riders throughout, which I beg Z to reconsider. Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness. The Witch-King, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others [though note that he is nevertheless not excluded from the above explication that the Nazgul rely on fear rather than any true power. -obloquy]; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force. But even in the Battle of the Pelennor, the darkness had only just broken. See III 114.

It is possible that Tolkien intended to convey that Sauron had enhanced the Witch-King in some way. However, it seems more likely to me, given the context of the excerpt and the manner of the letter, that Tolkien is describing the literary effect of Sauron's decision to put him in command of the assault on the Pelennor. We, the reader or viewer, see in the Witch-King in III "an added demonic force" that is due to his portrayal at first as a scary wraith, and later as a military captain. In the last sentence Tolkien still qualifies the Witch-King's appearance at the Pelennor by reminding us that the darkness, under which the Nazgul seem more terrible, had only recently passed.

Also notice how Tolkien says "he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III." By whom must he not yet be raised to that stature? It sounds like he's telling Mr. Zimmerman that he must not yet raise him to that stature in his film, implying that the "added demonic force" (or increase of stature) of Vol. III is given by the author, not by Sauron. The command of the army is given by Sauron, which results in an impression of increased stature on the reader.

Whether you agree with my analysis or not, it is impossible for you to claim that Tolkien's intention was, without a doubt, that Sauron had pumped some extra bad-guy juice into his pet.

That is only your opinion in the end

It is not only my opinion if there is no evidence to support the contrary.

and the scene in the book where Gandalf met the Witch-King at the gates of Minas Tirith was most definitely not a confrontation where one combatant was depicted with any sort of strength over the other.

Again, I'll reproduce the whole segment so we don't forget the details:

In rode the Lord of the Nazgul. A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed up, grown to a vast menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazgul, under the archway that no enemy ever yet had passed, and all fled before his face.

All save one. There waiting, silent and still in the space before the Gate, sat Gandalf upon Shadowfax: Shadowfax who alone among the free horses of the earth endured the terror, unmoving, steadfast as a graven image in Rath Dinen.

'You cannot enter here,' said Gandalf, and the huge shadow halted. 'Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master. Go!'

The Black Rider flung back his hood, and behold! he had a kingly crown; and yet upon no head visible was it set. The red fires shone between it and the mantled shoulders vast and dark. From a mouth unseen there came a deadly laughter.

'Old fool!' he said. 'Old fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!' And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade.

Gandalf did not move.

Chilling to the spine, gorgeous and one of the best portions of the whole book. Gandalf stands in the way of the Witch-King, untrembling, unhesitating, and tells him that he cannot enter the city. The Witch-King obeys. The Witch-King confronted Gandalf by accident, not because he was planning to fight him. Gandalf was waiting for him, and prevents his advance. The Witch-King mouths off, but his words are empty and his threat does not even get Gandalf to move. The Balrog at least prompted Gandalf to prepare for combat! Gandalf may still be required not to reveal his true power, but he defeated the Balrog while observing that limitation, and he is here, at the gates, in front of the Witch-King, obviously unafraid. Granted, the Witch-King does not appear afraid either, but there's no reason to think that he had any idea what Gandalf really was, and he is notoriously overconfident, having misinterpreted Glorfindel's prophecy.

The tension of the Battle of the Pelennor Fields is due to the uncertainty as to whether Minas Tirith can hold out against the siege. It has nothing to do with which leader is personally more powerful.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Mansun

The fact that the Witch King withdrew at the gate as Gandalf challenged him means that Gandalf did win. The Witch King effectively threw in the towel as though this battle was no longer for him

No it doesn't. The Witch-King had to leave because his army was going to get owned by Rohan, and Gandalf had to put off the fight to save Faramir. Gandalf didn't win squat, and neither did the Witch-King. The fight was put off. Nobody overpowered the other.

Originally Posted by Mansun

I don't remember the Balrog withdrawing when confronted by the entire Company - it knew it could defeat any of them with it's power. That's how it is as the books are concerned.

The Witch-King withdrew to save his army, not because Gandalf was stronger. It's present in the text.

And obloquy, The Witch-King most certainly does not obey. He was about to attack Gandalf with his sword or a spell. When Gandalf tells the Witch-King he cannot enter, the Witch-King just laughs in his face and tells him off. Also, it states that "There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force." The wording of this statement implies that the Witch-King was given an "added demonic force." Being chosen to lead the army would in no way give him an added demonic force: it would just mean that he was leading the army, and he had led other armies in his time. The professor specifically wrote that the Witch-King had been given extra power in this encounter.

Obloquy, step down from your perch for a second and realize that your "proof" is not really solid proof. It's just your interpretation of the writings. Heck, even your statement of Gandalf and Sauron having equal power came as a sudden jump in the link you posted. At Minas Tirith, Gandalf and the Witch-King were apparently equal. Gandalf having an advantage would just make Gandalf a safety-blanket who would handle Gondor's problems. The Witch-King having the advantage would make Rohan's arrival seem more like a writer's trick to save Gandalf. It was an equal stand-off, and it was by chance that the two did not have the fight they were prepared for.

[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.

[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.