Gandalf - geat or a joke of a wizard?

[Galadriel55]

Good points, all of you. Thanks for your opinions!
However, what I wanted to say in my last post is that Gandalf was afraid for himself, which is, I think, the only time in LOTR and TH when that happens. He can be afraid for others, for missions, for many different things, bu I've always imagined him to be this kind of person who doesn't feel fear for himself. And I don't mean stuff that involves the Ring, because Gandalf is afraid of how the Ring could make him evil, and what that would do to others.
Aiwendil has an interesting explanation for that - that accepting human form forces you to accept human weaknesses and limitations, if I understood it correctly. However, I think that the human form only affected the physical (more or less) part of him, and not the mental (or psycological). Taking a form is like putting on clothes for the ainur, and clothes don't usually affect the way you think and feel. Of course, this is up to speculation, and I guess it depends on your personal opinion.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Aiwendil has an interesting explanation for that - that accepting human form forces you to accept human weaknesses and limitations, if I understood it correctly. However, I think that the human form only affected the physical (more or less) part of him, and not the mental (or psychological). Taking a form is like putting on clothes for the Ainur, and clothes don't usually affect the way you think and feel. Of course, this is up to speculation, and I guess it depends on your personal opinion.

By coincidence, I was just reading a portion of Tolkien's Letters that addresses Gandalf and his humanity/lack of humanity. Since I know where to find it easily, let me quote:

Originally Posted by Tolkien, Letter 156, to Robert Murray SJ

But G[andalf] is not, of course, a human being (Man or Hobbit). There are naturally no precise modern terms to say what he was. I w[ould] venture to say that he was an incarnate 'angel'– strictly an ἄγγελος: that is, with the other Istari, wizards, 'those who know', an emissary from the Lords of the West, sent to Middle-earth, as the great crisis of Sauron loomed on the horizon. By 'incarnate' I mean they were embodied in physical bodies capable of pain, and weariness, and of afflicting the spirit with physical fear, and of being 'killed', though supported by the angelic spirit they might endure long, and only show slowly the wearing of care and labour.

--emphasis mine

...and, from the same letter, regarding Gandalf the White:

Originally Posted by Tolkien

Gandalf may be enhanced in power (that is, under the forms of this fable, in sanctity), but if still embodied he must still suffer care and anxiety, and the needs of flesh.

Actually, the letter is worth reading in its entirety, but that's a lot of copying... In any case, I think the point should be sufficiently clear that the incarnation of the Istari was not like putting on clothes--it was not merely assuming a form, or wearing it; rather, it was becoming it.

[Morthoron]

I don't believe Gandalf was a Geat. I am more inclined to think he was an Angle, concurring with Pope Gregory I and his comment that Angles were angels ("Non Angli, sed angeli"), particularly considering the Maiar were referred to as "angelic" beings. And therein is the joke as well.

[Sarumian]

I tend to agree with many things mentioned here, but think when Tolkien was writing The Hobbit he probably hadn't formed his idea of Gandalf-Olorin, or it could have been a bit different. We just need to compare Gandalf's encounter with wolfs in The Hobbit with the battle he gave them in LOTR near Garadhras (Journey In The Dark). The situations were quite alike, save for the fact that in LOTR Gandalf new for sure what the Ring was. But that must not have changed things much: if Gandalf had died in The Hobbit, he would also have failed fulfilling his quest.

I believe Tolkien allowed such difference not by mistake, but for a good reason. While the LOTR is "based" on the account of Frodo and other members of the Fellowship, the Hobbit is written "according to" Bilbo's notes. Gandalf could have told Bilbo that he had been afraid or the latter just assumed it as he'd been in panic himself. I would argue that Bilbo had had a limited knowledge of Gandalf's might till the time of the Council of Erlond, and he was also slightly ironic in regard of the Grey Wizard, playing a part of a well-intended hobbit. Would you agree?

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Sarumian

Would you agree?

I definitely would!

[Azrakhor Akallabeth]

It might also be worth mentioning that among the many books, commentaries and articles I've read about LOTR and M-E it was very convincingly pointed out that Wizards, while having great power, were particularly great against other magical individuals of great power (like the Balrog), and not necessarily so useful in a common fight with slings and stones, whereupon wit and wisdom served better. The capacity to wreak great ruin among his numerous foes was limited to his more "earthbound" skills, such as with gunpowder and fiery pine cones (oh dread!).

This may possibly have had something to do with the limits of his proscribed duties, but even the great among the ancient elves, for example, could only slay people one sword swipe or arrow at a time, even though many Great Lords of Elven kind waxed extremely powerful during their visit to Valinor, overshadowing their own kindred who remained behind. Some appeared to approach Even lesser Maia-like potency and ability. Gandalf was surely as great as any Elf Lord.

The great Girdle of Melian is an example of the kind of power a "good" Maia could wield, and was defensive rather than offensive and destructive, so it's doubtful whether Gandalf, even as Olorin, would, could, or might be inclined to cause his enemies to vanish in a great cloud of smoking ruin, even if he had great need to do so. The "Powers" of Middle Earth appeared to be more that of empowering and dominating, or influencing and convincing, great masses of others to do all of the slaying for them. Otherwise, the "good guys" so respected life and creation that it's probably not even in their realm of thought to overly consider the arts of mass destruction.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Azrakhor

Gandalf The Geat

Ok, ok, this was my first thread, and I didn't bother checking the spelling! Is everyone gonna point out the missing "r" to me until the end of my days?!

/joking.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Sarumian

I tend to agree with many things mentioned here, but think when Tolkien was writing The Hobbit he probably hadn't formed his idea of Gandalf-Olorin, or it could have been a bit different. We just need to compare Gandalf's encounter with wolfs in The Hobbit with the battle he gave them in LOTR near Garadhras (Journey In The Dark). The situations were quite alike, save for the fact that in LOTR Gandalf new for sure what the Ring was. But that must not have changed things much: if Gandalf had died in The Hobbit, he would also have failed fulfilling his quest.

I believe Tolkien allowed such difference not by mistake, but for a good reason. While the LOTR is "based" on the account of Frodo and other members of the Fellowship, the Hobbit is written "according to" Bilbo's notes. Gandalf could have told Bilbo that he had been afraid or the latter just assumed it as he'd been in panic himself. I would argue that Bilbo had had a limited knowledge of Gandalf's might till the time of the Council of Elrond, and he was also slightly ironic in regard of the Grey Wizard, playing a part of a well-intended hobbit. Would you agree?

The above is a good in character way of putting it. Out of character, I don't believe all Tolkien's works were intended to be in the same style, written for the same audience, or holding the same themes. Silmarillion and other First Age works are tragedies reminiscent of Wagner, with larger than life flawed characters doomed ill thought out oaths or flaws such as pride. Lord of the Rings is more Christian less Pagan. The Hobbit is a less serious work, more fun.

In a role playing game, I have had to deal with the changing styles in character development in play. The game master wouldn't tell us the year, so I wasn't sure how to play my elven minstrel. Were her songs to be merry nonsense as in The Hobbit when Bilbo passed through Rivendell, or was the mood far more somber and serious as when Frodo arrived years later. As my character was a singer quite knowledgable in the old sagas, she is most reluctant to swear oaths, her worship of the Valar is checked by knowledge of how their stubbornness and anger contributed to much turmoil.

Thus, like many, I was trying to sustain the illusion of a whole bunch of works written about one world with a single consistent history. In the game, once we learned that Mount Doom had recently burst into flame, I decided that the merry care free days at the core of the Third Age were coming to an end, that the elves had begun to see that their time was near its closing. I played Aerlinn's singing as about one third the frivolous style of The Hobbit, two thirds Lord of the Rings. I played her personality and values too as Lord of the Rings rather than Hobbit or Silmarillion.

Perhaps one shouldn't say the books are inconsistent, but that cultures change over long periods of time.

Or, one can suppose that Bilbo and Frodo were just different personalities, and their way of scribing the tale into the Red Book was distinct as the the titles they selected for the book.

At any rate, when setting the style and themes of a role playing game, there are several distinctly different styles available. The game master and players might best decide which one they are trying to work with. I find myself, when discussing the books, remaining aware of changing style and theme as well.

[FlameofAnor]

Like it was mentioned, Gandalf was a Istari Wizard - one of five. He was one of the more powerful beings in existence, sent on divine purpose. In the midst of a Hobbit and a band of Dwarves, though, he is but a wizard - a 'conjurer of cheap tricks,' if I may borrow the saying. No doubt powerful, but to simple folk like Hobbits and Dwarves, not much more than that. To prance around like some deity shooting lightning from his fingers, glowing like an angel would no doubt, for one, make him unapproachable, and two, give away his whereabouts and intentions to the enemy.

Don't forget about Radagast the Brown, too. Tolkien says he was counted in the same class as Gandalf, but, according to the lore, his stayed out of the affairs of Men and Elves, and lived in the forest, going so far as to forsake his purpose.

I think when we think of a 'wizard' nowadays, we think of a powerful conjurer like we see in movies and other fantasy stories. I don't think Tolkien wanted his wizards to be quite so stereotypical, Mickey Mouse in a point hat, type characters. Plus, I like Gandalf's bit of subtly when dealing with minor enemies, like those creatures. It makes his confrontation and power against more sinister forces, like the Balrog, more epic.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by FlameofAnor

I think when we think of a 'wizard' nowadays, we think of a powerful conjurer like we see in movies and other fantasy stories. I don't think Tolkien wanted his wizards to be quite so stereotypical, Mickey Mouse in a point hat, type characters. Plus, I like Gandalf's bit of subtly when dealing with minor enemies, like those creatures. It makes his confrontation and power against more sinister forces, like the Balrog, more epic.

I don't know. Tolkien was a linguist. I might argue that the greater spells are in words and in courage. Mere fireballs are weak in comparison. One of my favorite examples, Eowyn exchanging prophecies with the Witch King...

A sword rang as it was drawn. 'Do what you will; but I will hinder it, if I may.'

'Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!'

'But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Eowyn I am, Eommond's daughter. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.'

One doesn't have to be a great wizard to wield words in a decisive way. If one dares to exchange words with a Nazgul, if the Nazgul makes a mistake in his prophecy...

Another example of non-wizardry magic might be oath breaking. The folk who lived along the Paths of the Dead broke an oath, which gave Isildur the power to declare an appropriate curse.

The magic of Middle Earth isn't weak and it isn't necessarily subtle. It's just different. Throwing fire or teleporting might be major physical manifestations of magic, but manipulating fate through words is nothing to sneer at.