Gandalf Vs. The Witch King

[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.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Don't forget the nature of the letter. You mention readers who might misinterpret it, but it was originally a letter to an individual

I agree; however, I was reffering to the books having this possible believability problem, I apologise if I wasn't specific enough.

Originally Posted by obloquy

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."

Well, it wasn't technically daylight, since they were fighting under Sauron's Shadow. As I see it, the witch-king is consistently described as leader of armies and a high-ranking (if not highest) in Sauron's army/subjects - starting from the Prologue, to Aragorn's, Tom's, Gandalf's mentionings, and finishing with the appendices and tale of years. If Tolkien intended to present him in increase stature only as a military comander at the Pelennor Fields, he spoiled that "surprise" by other (past and not only) refferences.

[The Saucepan Man]

I am somewhat at a loss to see the relevance of all these textual references to a discussion of the characters and events of the film, which are (to varying degrees) frequently different from those presented in the book.

Frankly, it doesn’t matter to me if there is no textual basis for the outcome of the confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch-King if it works on screen (which it does for me).

The characters of Gandalf and the Witch-King, and the portrayal of their confrontation, on film were largely determined by reference to the necessities of the medium and the other choices made by the film-makers. As alatar has pointed out, the character of Gandalf the White was significantly watered down in the film, a choice made by Jackson and co, rightly or wrongly, to enhance the impression of Aragorn as the principal “hero”. Similarly, the power of the Witch-King was enhanced to provide an “on-screen” counterpoint to Gandalf.

The main relevance of the “added demonic force” reference in the letter, as I see it, is that Jackson and co may have read it and interpreted it as justification for the change made (not that they appear to have felt that such justification was needed for the changes that they made on a more general level).

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

The characters of Gandalf and the Witch-King, and the portrayal of their confrontation, on film were largely determined by reference to the necessities of the medium and the other choices made by the film-makers. As alatar has pointed out, the character of Gandalf the White was significantly watered down in the film, a choice made by Jackson and co, rightly or wrongly, to enhance the impression of Aragorn as the principal “hero”. Similarly, the power of the Witch-King was enhanced to provide an “on-screen” counterpoint to Gandalf.

The main relevance of the “added demonic force” reference in the letter, as I see it, is that Jackson and co may have read it and interpreted it as justification for the change made (not that they appear to have felt that such justification was needed for the changes that they made on a more general level).

In that case, the power of the Balrog of Morgoth must have been significantly watered down in the film as well, even though on face value this demon seems to be on a level similar to Sauron.

With regards to the earlier comment about ''Black is mightier still'' - do you remember this quote:-

''Dangerous!' cried Gandalf. 'And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord.''

I assume then that Black meant Sauron, or perhaps Mordor in general.


Essex likes to refer to analogies, but they are not that effective when you are comparing a Supernatural god-like creature against a powerful sorcerer. This duel is an exceptional case, and although no battle actually takes place between the two, the fact that Gandalf has already defeated another supernatural terror in combat makes a strong case that he is favourite against anyone else, save the Dark Lord himself, which is what the above quote justifies.

One other point, Gandalf knows he should not reveal his true nature or power unless he is absolutely called to do so, hence his denial to Denethor, who has no knowledge of what Gandalf is. Gandalf also says to the Balrog '' I am a servant of the secret fire ... the dark fire will not avail you'', which may suggest even the Balrog did not know what kind of opponent he was originally up against.

It is likely that the enhanced Witch King would have forced Gandalf into revealing his true power in battle, since the Balrog was able to do so immediately. In this case, I cannot give the Witch King a hope in hell of victory against a maiair, though I could not gaurantee a victory for Gandalf either, since the Witch King may well decide he is overmatched & ride off, as he has done in the past when confronted by Glorfindel. Gandalf wouldn't chase the Witch King to destroy him.

[Raynor]

In this case, I cannot give the Witch King a hope in hell of victory against a maiair

Why? Sauron himself was previously defeated when he fought against two non-maiar (and Fingolfin wounded even Melkor). There is no single circumstance that I know of when a body is made invulnerable.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Why? Sauron himself was previously defeated when he fought against two non-maiar (and Fingolfin wounded even Melkor). There is no single circumstance that I know of when a body is made invulnerable.

How exactly did they manage it? Was it down to a mixture of fate & luck, or through the power in them? There would be no luck or even fate involved if Gandalf fought the Witch King - it would like drawing fire against fire.

[Raynor]

Was it down to a mixture of fate & luck, or through the power in them?

All of them, I suppose. However, given the exact same conditions, I doubt that a certain fight between the same opponents, if repeated, will always have the same outcome (unless the disparities in advantages are enormous).

There would be no luck or even fate involved if Gandalf fought the Witch King

Well, this promises to be a ping-pong ; why would you exclude luck or fate?