''Three cheers for Captain Frodo, Lord of the Ring''

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Mansun

I don't think telling other posters what to do is the correct approach. There is meant to be active discussion here, not a heated argument.

Who's having a heated argument? Mansun, it is very hard to have a discussion if you don't understand what the other party is getting at. I am not "telling you what to do", I'm suggesting you make your points a bit more clearly. All right?

On that note– what in the quote

"But let us not darken our hearts by imagining the trial of their gentle loyalty in the Dark Tower."

indicates light-hearted humour? This is a genuine question. I really, really want to know.

Also–

Originally Posted by Mansun

Do you forget Farmer Maggot here? He had beaten Frodo before, in the wrong side of fury. Didn't Gandalf nearly burn Gollum alive in a flash of anger?

Again, I'm at loss to know what possible bearing Farmer Maggot has on anything.

And Gandalf did not "nearly burn Gollum alive in a flash of anger". He threatened him with fire, to get him to talk. Not nice, I agree– but not the same thing.

Here's the quote (from The Shadow of the Past):

"I endured him as long as I could, but the truth was desperately important, and in the end I had to be harsh. I put the fear of fire on him, and wrung the true story out of him, bit by bit, together with much snivelling and snarling."

Originally Posted by Nerwen

On that note– what in the quote indicates light-hearted humour? This is a genuine question. I really, really want to know.

It is grim reading, yet with a touch of hollow humour.

[Nerwen]

Why? I don't get it.

Btw, as you see I have added another question to my last post.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Who's having a heated argument? Mansun, it is very hard to have a discussion if you don't understand what the other party is getting at. I am not "telling you what to do", I'm suggesting you make your points a bit more clearly. All right?

On that note– what in the quote



indicates light-hearted humour? This is a genuine question. I really, really want to know.

Also–



Again, I'm at loss to know what possible bearing Farmer Maggot has on anything.

And Gandalf did not "nearly burn Gollum alive in a flash of anger". He threatened him with fire, to get him to talk. Not nice, I agree– but not the same thing.

Here's the quote (from The Shadow of the Past):

Gollum would not have understood the real intentions of Gandalf, and drawing a brand of fire at him would have been for real. In his eyes, Gollum was nearly consumed with fire.

Farmer Maggot and Gandalf were friends, that's as far as the connection goes in relation to Frodo. Gandalf must have thought of Maggot a decent enough hobbit if he visited him now and again, as with Bombadil.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

As far as bans, I have never been told in over a year of posting here that directly quoting another poster is a bannable offense, particularly since direct quotes seems to be the norm around here these days (and correct in a scholarly and literary sense, considering one should always properly cite a quote). But if that is the case, then ban yourself for doing it, please, or better yet, stick to the discussion, thank you.

blah blah blah

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Gollum would not have understood the real intentions of Gandalf, and drawing a brand of fire at him would have been for real. In his eyes, Gollum was nearly consumed with fire.

Farmer Maggot and Gandalf were friends, that's as far as the connection goes in relation to Frodo. Gandalf must have thought of Maggot a decent enough hobbit if he visited him now and again, as with Bombadil.

I don't where to start with this one.

Yes, Gandalf deliberately frightened Gollum, making him think he was going to burn him.

Saying Gandalf "nearly burned Gollum alive in a flash of anger" is not a statement about Gollum's subjective impressions. It is a statement about Gandalf's actions and intentions which is simply not supported by the text.

As for the other thing... still a non sequitur, sorry.

And you still haven't answered my number one question. Where is the joke in

"But let us not darken our hearts by imagining the trial of their gentle loyalty in the Dark Tower."

Now, I know that to explain a joke is to ruin it... but you're using this one as a key part of your argument. Where is the humour in that comment?

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I don't where to start with this one.

Yes, Gandalf deliberately frightened Gollum, making him think he was going to burn him.

Saying Gandalf "nearly burned Gollum alive in a flash of anger" is not a statement about Gollum's subjective impressions. It is a statement about Gandalf's actions and intentions which is simply not supported by the text.

As for the other thing... still a non sequitur, sorry.

And you still haven't answered my number one question. Where is the joke in



Now, I know that to explain a joke is to ruin it... but you're using this one as a key part of your argument. Where is the humour in that comment?

There is no doubt that Gandalf wanted Gollum to think that he would burn him for real if he did not speak. I say no more on the matter. I just brought it up as support for the fact that Gandalf threatening to harm helpless hobbits in a severe situation was not as unthinkable as some would think.

As for the humour to the quote above, it is something which I saw as a chink of humour within a grim and dark context. You may not have seen it, but I don't think people need to be convinced one way or the other. I never saw the comment as funny or a joke, but slightly lighthearted by Gandalf's grim standards.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Mansun

There is no doubt that Gandalf wanted Gollum to think that he would burn him for real if he did not speak.

No doubt whatever. But that's not what you said. You said

Didn't Gandalf nearly burn Gollum alive in a flash of anger?

The answer to that question is: No, he didn't. Bang! There goes that part of your argument.

Originally Posted by Mansun

As for the humour to the quote above, it is something which I saw as a chink of humour within a grim and dark context. You may not have seen it, but I don't think people need to be convinced one way or the other.

Yes, we do. You are basing your argument that Gandalf is a hypocrite (for not letting Pippin make light-hearted comments about Sauron when he does so himself) on something in this quote. Therefore you must explain what that something is.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

No doubt whatever. But that's not what you said. You said



The answer to that question is: No, he didn't. Bang! There goes that part of your argument.




Yes, we do. You are basing your argument that Gandalf is a hypocrite (for not letting Pippin make light-hearted comments about Sauron when he does so himself) on something in this quote. Therefore you must explain what that something is.

If you light a brand of fire close to a creature, urging them to speak or suffer the pain of fire, that is reasonable evidence to suggest Gollum was nearly burnt alive by Gandalf, as nearly is not the same as definately.

There is little point trying to convince others too wearily over whether a qoute is lighthearted to a small degree or not. If you don't see it, why should that bother anyone else?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Mansun

If you light a brand of fire close to a creature, urging them to speak or suffer the pain of fire, that is reasonable evidence to suggest Gollum was nearly burnt alive by Gandalf, as nearly is not the same as definately.

No. He threatened Gollum with torture by fire (we are not given the details) to make him speak. He did not

nearly burn Gollum alive in a flash of anger

That's what you said he did. He didn't. He wasn't acting in a rage; nor– for anything we know to the contrary– did he ever intend to burn Gollum.

Originally Posted by Mansun

There is little point trying to convince others too wearily over whether a qoute is lighthearted to a small degree or not. If you don't see it, why should that bother anyone else?

You haven't tried to convince me at all– unless saying over and over again that you think it's light-hearted is an attempt to mesmerise me into agreeing.

It matter very much that I don't see it, since as I said, you are basing a significant part of your argument on it.

Of course, your original premise was simply that Gandalf was mean to Pippin. Fine, That is basically a matter of personal opinion, and one on which we can all agree to disagree. But what you're doing is trying to prove it objectively, using "evidence" from the text which is either demonstrably wrong, or which you refuse to explain. (You have, in the course of this, also expanded the scope of your argument, so that it has become a much broader attack on the character of Gandalf.)

Yet again, what is it that you find light-hearted in

"But let us not darken our hearts by imagining the trial of their gentle loyalty in the Dark Tower."

It's a short quote. Can't you just point out the light-hearted part to me? Why not?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Gollum would not have understood the real intentions of Gandalf, and drawing a brand of fire at him would have been for real. In his eyes, Gollum was nearly consumed with fire.

Originally Posted by Mansun

There is no doubt that Gandalf wanted Gollum to think that he would burn him for real if he did not speak. I say no more on the matter. I just brought it up as support for the fact that Gandalf threatening to harm helpless hobbits in a severe situation was not as unthinkable as some would think.

Your comments are not supported by Gandalf's actions with the hobbits (including some very dangerous situations in Moria and in handling the Palantir), and do not jibe with the specific quote, which is here:

"I endured him as long as I could, but the truth was desperately important, and in the end I had to be harsh. I put the fear of fire on him, and wrung the true story out of him, bit by bit, together with much snivelling and snarling."

1) There is no indication that Gandalf had a fire-brand in his hand. The 'fear of fire' does not necessarily represent 'actual fire'.
2) Gandalf was interrogating a dangerous individual (and a possible enemy), not chiding a silly hobbit who obviously needed some education.
3) Gandalf would not require actual fire to make a point. If you forget, he induced a similar reaction in Bilbo when Bilbo would not surrender the Ring. Gandalf had the ability to act on a psycholgical level rather than a physical one.
4) The fate of Middle-earth was hanging in the balance when Gandalf interrogated Gollum. If you'd like to read about a more corporal means of extracting information, please refer to Sauron's torture of Gollum.

Originally Posted by Mansun

Farmer Maggot and Gandalf were friends, that's as far as the connection goes in relation to Frodo. Gandalf must have thought of Maggot a decent enough hobbit if he visited him now and again, as with Bombadil.

I am sure Farmer Maggot disciplined his own sons in the same manner as he did Frodo -- when they were children. Again, the hobbits were adults during the Lord of the Rings; therefore the analogy is implausible.

Originally Posted by Mansun

blah blah blah

Thank you for the inciteful reply. I am sure such commentary is within the bounds of the etiquette set by the moderators, as you so often remind other posters.

Originally Posted by Mansun

There is little point trying to convince others too wearily over whether a qoute is lighthearted to a small degree or not. If you don't see it, why should that bother anyone else?

As far as I can see, you are the only one posting on this thread thus far that sees any humor in the quote; therefore, Nerwen has kindly requested an explanation so that the rest of the posters can understand your point of reference. Otherwise, your position is untenable.