Well, Gandalf, it's nice to see you again, but...

[Anguirel]

I was wondering yesterday if I would have enjoyed The Lord of the Rings rather more had Gandalf stayed dead.

The task ahead for the Three Hunters and their chums such as Eomer would be trickier; the story darker and more fraught with danger and death; in fact, it might end up closer to the Silmarillion...but victory would assuredly still be possible. I'm not quite sure how the sub-plot of Narya would be dealt with; perhaps the Red Ring would be destroyed with Gandalf or never given to him at all. But that's a comparatively minor problem.

Wouldn't our nice message about the triumph of the race of Men, despite all the odds, be rather clear without some smug semi-seraphic septuachilogenarian running about?

I get particularly infuriated by lines like "Ha ha! None of you even have any weapons that could hurt me! I am the White Rider!" They make part of me wish Aragorn could produce a flintlock and test Gandalf's proposition...

Gandalf's occasional cheerful flashes of wisdom could easily be dispensed by Faramir, Aragorn, types like that. It's a bit depressing for Aragorn, who after Gandalf's death lacks confidence as a leader, to have that problem solved not by gaining realisation of his own abilities but by the return of his comforting mentor-figure.

And yes, I know about the Three Rebirths of Gandalf, Frodo and Aragorn, going underground and all, but really, a tricolon...that's low.

So. Somebody give me a good reason why Gandalf had to pop up out of the abyss like some blasted White Rabbit, er, Rider.

[Rhod the Red]

I have a slight fantasy. It would be great if TLOTR came true and I and several others were sent as a Second Order of the Istari to carry on the task of guiding the West against Saruman and Sauron. Appearing at like the edges of Fanghorn Forest, rescuing Merry and Pippin and awaiting the rest to arrive.

Lol! Too good to come true?

I don't see anything wrong in Gandalf coming back, they needed him. Period.

[Thinlómien]

The first things that come into my mind, in random order, serious and less serious:

1) Tolkien wanted to continue with the familiar character he was maybe fond of or he needed Gandalf as a starting element in the story. Later, he just couldn't kill him. Our tender-hearted professor...

2) Wise Gandalf from Valinor is always around, and then he leaves without ever coming back to Middle-Earth. This strongly contributes to the theme of passing away and that people (hobbits, Aragorn) should do things themselves, not always wait for someone (Gandalf) to be helping them.

3) Gandalf's existence is nearly essential in Saruman's drama, and you wouldn't like to drop Saruman out, would you?

4) The good guys need a figurehead that matches the nazgûl.

5) Someone needs to be with the eagles pick Frodo and Sam up from Mt. Doom.

6) Gandalf gets close to the reader at the beginning. He is an important character. If he'd permanently die when there's still 3/4 of the book to go, that would leave the reader with a hollow feeling. (Tolkien wrote the story to himself, yes, I know, but he wouldn't have made a modern-style or poor story.)

[Bêthberry]

I'm not sure how much these comments will relate to Anguirel's fascinating topic, but here goes.

As a reader, I've never really been especially enamoured of Gandalf the White. Gandalf the Grey is an intriguing mix of character. He's the tricksome wizard who folks in The Shire don't trust--and he plays up that role. He's the enigmatic mentor of Frodo. He's a mysterious, conflicted sort who doesn't see through Saruman until too late. He has this power, but must not use it. Who can handle that kind of self-control? And he's immensely important in explaining what the terrible appeal of the Ring is. In short, Gandalf the Grey is both a multi-layered character and a narrative necessity.

Once Gandalf the White comes back, to me at least, he is far less interesting. His cover is blown. He can come out shootin and that ironically limits his field of operation. All the strategic worrying at things and about things is reduced to flat out frowning about how Frodo is doing.

Of course, maybe this is an extreme confession of my pyschological quirkiness: give me a Grey Eminence anyday rather than the Sun King!

[mormegil]

I believe one key aspect that is a factor in Gandalf returning is demonstrating that the Valar are extending a hand of fellowship, so to speak, to men; specifically extending their hand of friendship again to the remnant of Numenor. Numenor, initially had the friendship and grace of the Valar and that is what made them great. Aragorn needed a hand extended to him if they were ever to be great again. Gandalf was sent to aid man, which he did and wouldn’t have been able to had he, alone of the Istari, not completed the task that was assigned to their order.

Secondly, and along the same line, Aragorn wasn’t fully ready to become king. He had too much self doubt. Gandalf, by his return, was able to alleviate that. To me Gandalf the White needed to return to make sure that men were put on the right path.

This is brief but it’s a couple of the thoughts I’ve had.

[Formendacil]

In tandem, I think, with Morm's thoughts, Gandalf' return was necessary as a sign of the importance of the battle against Sauron. Without Gandalf, the battle is something of a "small nations vs. Mighty Aggressor" sort of battle. Honourable, to be sure, and definitely worthy and in need of fighting.

With Gandalf the White there, however, the battle takes on a more... how shall I say it?.. spiritual dimension. It ceases to be merely "good guys vs. bad guys" and becomes Good vs. Evil. Without Gandalf, we lose the potent symbolism of White against Black. Also, Gandalf's power acts to help us see the sheer power of Sauron. Without Gandalf, Sauron's defeat at the hands of a Hobbit merely goes to show that he is fallible and defeatable, that he was defeated by a "mere" Hobbit.

Gandalf's presence, however, since we are shown his great power and authority, highlights Sauron's own power, since Gandalf finds himself with his hands full against the Witchking. This, in turn, makes the defeat of Sauron that much more eucatastrophic, since we are more clearly aware of just how powerful Sauron (and the Ring) is.

Continuing with the idea of spiritual importance, Gandalf is a clear symbol of there being a "Greater Power" involved- whether you're considering this greater power to be just the Valar, or Eru Himself. This is in agreement with Tolkien's strong Catholic feelings. The fight of Good is aided by above. We are not just fighting on our own, or for ourselves, but on behalf of Good everywhere. Without Gandalf the White, the Lord of the Rings loses the integral sense that it has of Right vs. Wrong.

And I agree with Anguirel that this makes it different from the Silmarillion. But it is a NECESSARY and INTENDED difference. The War of the Jewels, though a war of good vs. evil is NOT a war of Right vs. Wrong. The Eldar, though they remain the good guys, are essentially waging an unsanctioned war- a war that should have had the support of the Valar to be truly Right. That is why they continued to suffer defeat, and why it wasn't until Eärendil sought forgiveness of the Valar, so to speak, that Morgoth could be defeated. It wasn't until the Noldor recieve the pardon of the Valar that they were morally Right- and thus received the "help form above" that was necessary to defeat evil.

[Legolas]

I think a key point is that men (or elves, dwarves, etc.) cannot defeat a force like Sauron's (especially with Sauron, an Ainu, in leadership). Gandalf the White and the Eagles are intentionally placed; they are reminders that man cannot do it alone, and that Eru has not simply created the world and ignored it since. He does not leave it without his own representatives and influence, when necessary. This also happened at the end of The Silmarillion - Eonwe and his army have to give the Children a push and accomplish things that would've been unsuccessful otherwise.

In both instances, the Children were matched with adversaries far greater in strength. I think that fact is unsettling to readers.

'Over the bridge!' cried Gandalf, recalling his strength. 'Fly! This is a foe beyond any of you. I must hold the narrow way. Fly!'

'What hope have we without you?' - Aragorn

[Lalwendë]

Looking at this from a view of what simple pleasure I got from the books, I am certainly glad that Gandalf came back. I can see that Tolkien could have made a worthwhile point about the bravery of Men and Hobbits and the transition into the 'age of Men' by having them figure out how to beat Sauron by themselves, but there is something essentially fantastic about having a wizard throughout the story. Gandalf adds more simple magic to the tale, and when he 'dies' in Moria, it provides some suspense for the reader. I am sure I'm not alone in being horribly disappointed when in the Arthurian tales, Merlin is trapped by Nimue. The wizard, and hence all the magic, has gone!

I felt this way a little about the death of Smaug in The Hobbit. Wizards and Dragons are essentially wonderful, and putting aside plot and style and theme, appeal to me on a fundamental level. I have a sneaking suspicion Tolkien felt the same way and so would have been unable to kill off Gandalf even if he had wanted to. Maybe that is why he does come back to us. I wonder if HoME says anything about this?

[Rhod the Red]

We all love a reverend, wise wizard charchter in a story!

[davem]

I'm not sure Tolkien ever intended that Gandalf should die in Moria. Clearly we (as the Fellowship) are meant to think he died, but from my reading of HoM-e I can't see any point at which Tolkien thought that he had killed him off & then changed his mind. He even puzzles over how to account convincingly for his reappearance: 'How does Gandalf reappear?' (The Story Foreseen from Moria, HoM-e vol 7). Also Vol 6 'The Mines of Moria:

(Of course Gandalf must reappear later - probably fall is not as deep as it seemed. Gandalf thrusts Balrog underneath him & so ....& eventually the subterranean stream in the gulf he found a way out - but he does not turn up until they have had many adventures: not indeed until they are on borders of Mordor & the king of Ond is being beaten in battle.)

CT comments: This seems to show clearly that before ever the story of the fall of Gandalf from the Bridge of Khazad-dum was written, my father fully intended that he should return.)

Of course, this would have been too close to Gandalf's reappearance in TH just before the Battle of Five Armies, so on....

The intention always seems to have been that Gandalf would be around to play a major part in the Fall of Sauron. He just had to figure out how to separate him from the Company & probably to enhance his power.

[tom bombariffic]

From a storytelling point of view, Gandalf needed different things at different points. At first he needed to be quirky and mysterious, to emphasize how untypical of hobbits the Bagginses are; had Gandalf the White come to the shire and ordered any hobbit to do his bidding, they would probably not have doubted his authority. But Gandalf the grey is, to the hobbits' suspicious eyes, untrustworthy and mischievous.

Gandalf the Grey is also very elusive, often coming and going at night without warning, which is in keeping with the rangers' shadowy presence around the shire, and is the best way for Gandalf to gather early intelligence surrounding the ring without arousing suspicion. Gandalf the White is bold and commanding, and would have drawn Sauron's attention to the shire far too early.

Finally, as far as Gandalf the Grey goes, he needed to be recognised as strong, but not too strong. Elves and possibly Aragorn at the Council of Elrond would have recognised his power, and his potential, but others would not. Would Boromir have let the ring pass into the hands of Gandalf the White, who he would have had to recognise as his superior, and thus a potential threat, considering the treachery of Saruman? In my view, he had to be underestimated in order to gain the trust of Gondor, and possibly of the Dwarves too.

Thus Gandalf could not start the story as strong as he finished it. But he had to become stronger to justify his position as the general of the armies of good. Theoden and Denethor are both very proud leaders, and it is unlikely that they would hold any respect for Gandalf the Grey ("why should I welcome you, Gandalf Stormcrow?", says Theoden, not realising he has changed.) Gandalf also needed to be stronger, as has been said, to match up to Saruman and the Witch King of Angmar. Finally, returning more powerful than before would have given him the confidence in his own strength necessary to lead the forces of good into battle, as well as frightening the enemy, who would realise that they had more on their hands than they had bargained for.

Plus the fellowship's persistance when they think he is dead shows that they are all committed to the cause, not just being led along by Gandalf, &c &c. And it's exciting.

bombariffic.

[davem]

On the 'death' of Gandalf.

While Tolkien certainly stated in a couple of Letters (156 & 181) that Gandalf had really died, it seems that wasn't always the case. Hammond & Scull make the point:

(II: 118). I have not passed through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a serving-man - In the first three printings of the first edition (1954-S) fire and death read 'fire and flood', The phrase was emended in the fourth printing (1956). In his draft letter to Robert Murray, 4 November 1954,Tolkien wrote that Gandalf probably 'should rather have said to Wormtongue: "I have not passed through death (not 'fire and flood') to bandy crooked words with a serving-man'" (Letters, p. 201). Hammond/Scull: Reader's Companion to LotR

The question is whether Tolkien originally intended Gandalf to use the words 'fire & flood' (ie that he had not in fact 'died' at all (as in the note from HoM-e 6 I gave earlier) & only changed his mind after the book was published & deciding that Gandalf had actually died & been resurrected, or whether he had decided before publication that Gandalf had actually died but just forgot to change the words Gandalf spoke.

Of course in a Letter to Robert Murray Tolkien does call the return of Gandalf in TT 'a defect' which he didn't make enough effort to rectify (though from the context it is likely he means the way he handles the return, rather than the return itself, which, as CT indicated, was always Tolkien's intention).

Tolkien was clearly put on the spot by his readers who asked a great many questions about the nature of various characters so it may be that he only 'realised' after finishing LotR that Gandalf had 'really died'.

[Lalwendë]

It makes me wonder if the use of 'death' was an afterthought for Tolkien. As we know, he was a perfectionist, and he might well not have published anything if it was not for the demands of his publishers, but just gone on rewriting and editing his work. It also makes me wonder if he was constructing the idea of Gandalf's 'rebirth' at a later stage, while in the drafting stage he did not mean that; or did he just word the phrase badly and so not get his meaning across?

I tend towards the former actually, as 'fire and flood' seem to be very appropriate for Moria - the flood of the watcher in the water (and no doubt floods in the depths of Moria) and the fire of the Balrog. The phrase fits the story well. I do not mean that 'death' does not, but I am suspicious that Tolkien did change his mind after the fact and chose to use a short word with a lot of meaning. I think my suspicion is borne out by what davem has quoted earlier from HoME.

[Bêthberry]

I have to say that I think tom bombariffic is correct to observe that Gandalf must be/do different things at different time of the story. Absolutely.

And I'm not sure it really matters much what Tolkien said in his Letters, whether those letters were written at the time of writing or post publication. Statements of intention sometimes don't or can't outweigh the evidence of the story.

The loss/disappearance of Gandalf the Grey at Moria is one of the most unexpected and heart rending situations, for readers as well as for the rest of the Fellowship. This emotional reading experience is part of the great sense of loss which pervades LotR. Does it really matter that later on Tolkien was in his letters a bit embarassed by the credibility of having a character return from the dead? Isn't the significant fact the loss of the wizard who the others thought was their leader? What does one do when one's leader or mentor is lost?

I suppose Anguirel's question has to do with whether the fellowship needs an authority figure to help them find motivation and succour. However, to me, the question remains an aesthetic one: Gandalf the White is less interesting to me than Gandalf the Grey. Whether this reflects my own readerly pecadillos, or Tolkien's writing style and imagination, or something else, I don't think is germane to Anguirel's thread here, which I suspect might relate to the question of how or whether readers feel the need for some kind of providential messenger who can guide men and the hobbits.

[Legolas]

If you're looking to understand the author's intention, the purpose of the event in the book, it certainly can matter. It was originally posed "give me a good reason why Gandalf had to pop up out of the abyss." Whether you care personally what Tolkien thought is not the question. Looking to the author for reasoning is a good way to start. No one is supposing such statements will outweigh the evidence of the story. They supplement the evidence in the story; they bring it into perspective.

As noted in the post that provided the quote, Tolkien does not appear to be "embarassed by the credibility of having a character return from the dead," but rather by the way he handled it within the story.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

And I'm not sure it really matters much what Tolkien said in his Letters, whether those letters were written at the time of writing or post publication. Statements of intention sometimes don't or can't outweigh the evidence of the story.

Does it really matter that later on Tolkien was in his letters a bit embarassed by the credibility of having a character return from the dead?

The intriguing thing is Tolkien's decision to have Gandalf return from the dead. The quotes I gave from HoM-e show there was never any point at which Tolkien considered Gandalf was going to be removed permanently from the story due to the events in Moria. The original intent was that he would seem to the others to have died but actually not (the fall wasn't as far as they believed, he landed on top of the Balrog, etc) & we can speculate that that was his intention even after publication (as Hammond/Scull point out the first three printings of LotR lack any mention on Gandalf's part of his having 'passed through death'. None of this denies any of Bb's points re the subjective effect Gandalf's apparent death has on the other members of the Company.

So, at some point Tolkien decides that 'No, he did really die'. Why? Well, clearly Gandalf had to be 'different' after his return because by that time the 'tale had grown in the telling'. When Gandalf originally fell in Moria Aragorn was still a Hobbit called Trotter with wooden shoes, by the time he reappeared things had gotten much bigger, darker & more significant: we've moved from the fairy story world of The New Hobbit into the mythic world of The Sil. In that world you don't get to finish off a Balrog by landing on top of it & then walking away (in fact it wasn't even intended that Gandalf should face a Balrog there, it was either Saruman or a Black Rider).

Gandalf returns 'different' but he doesn't actually return 'resurrected' (because he didn't die) for a very long time. Of course its possible that the 'knowledge' that Gandalf had 'really died' was in Tolkien's mind before hand but that he didn't realise it till later (when he writes to Father Murray that 'Gandalf should have said to Wormtongue that he 'had passed through death'), & Hammond & Scull point out the similarity of Gandalf's appearance to the Three Hunters to the appearance of the resurrected Christ to his disciples on the road to Emmaus - in both cases the 'followers' do not recognise their leader till he chooses to reveal himself to them.

Another possibility, of course, is that Tolkien was originally unsure whether to state clearly that Gandalf had died & been resurrected - maybe he felt it was a bit too close to the Christian story & didn't want to be accused of belittling Christ's resurrection.

However, all that is merely speculation. The point, in the context of this thread, is that Gandalf was always intended to be around in one form or another, the only issue for Tolkien seems to have been whether he 'died' in the middle or not.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Legolas

If you're looking to understand the author's intention, the purpose of the event in the book, it certainly can matter. It was originally posed "give me a good reason why Gandalf had to pop up out of the abyss." Whether you care personally what Tolkien thought is not the question. Looking to the author for reasoning is a good way to start. No one is supposing such statements will outweigh the evidence of the story. They supplement the evidence in the story; they bring it into perspective.

Well, Legolas does not directly name me personally, but I'll address his comments anyway as an opportunity to correct a misunderstanding that has popped up other places.

It is not that I 'don't care personally' what Tolkien thought. It is that I prefer to have authors' statements about their intentions carefully weighed against the stories they write and carefully examined in terms of when the statement was written vis a vis when the art was written, what the context is of the statement, who the recipient is of the statement. Sometimes author can misremember things, even their own work. Sometimes only years later can an author see--or be able to create--a logical framework or explanation for the artistic process. And sometimes authors as much as readers read back into their work things that weren't necessarily uppermost in their mind or even deep in the depths of their creative cauldron. This latter point seems to be the one most clearly related to some of the changes made to TH.

In short, any author's claim of intention is not an indisputable fact but a written document which needs to be thoughtfully considered before its applicability can be accepted. It isn't automatic, like a fingerprint in a court of law or forensics, even with an author such as Tolkien. And perhaps Tolkien even more than other authors, since he was such a niggler and since his stories were consciously changed in the revision.

So really what I am suggesting is the kind of analysis of writing process which davem has offerred here, something which gives us greater insight into how the story came to be in its final form. Where was that statement from Tolkien that he wanted to avoid a Fall in the Legendarium in order to avoid the appearance of parody? Maybe it was only after Tolkien saw some of the reactions of his readers that he came to understand how he wanted Gandalf's return to appear. 'Intention' is a long process.

[davem]

One thing that occurs to me - accepting that Tolkien never intended to remove Gandalf from play for the whole game - is that its probably the point at which Tolkien 'realises' Gandalf is a Maiar that he feels able to think about killing him off. Not that he seems to go the whole hog even then, but it certainly only becomes possible (imo) at that point. If Gandalf is simply a 'Wizard/Magician' as he appears in TH (ie an old MAN who can do magic as opposed to a supernatural being) then he cannot die & come back to life as that would be bordering on blasphemy from a Christian perspective.

Once Gandalf becomes Olorin the Maiar that all changes. Gandalf could die & be sent back to complete his divinely ordained mission, as his return is simply continuing that mission. So the death/resurrection of Gandalf becomes possible without being 'offensive'. The event becomes both more 'spectacular' (he really dies rather than just falling down a hole), & yet doesn't challenge the Christian claim for the uniqueness of Christ's resurrection, as Gandalf even after his return is still 'an incarnate Angel' (which is what he already was anyway). Imagine if Boromir had been brought back to life - how would Christians react to that?

I'm not sure this 'clicked' with Tolkien immediately - certainly he seems to have avoided stating (or having Gandalf state) that he had really died until after the book was in print. Yet it seems that it was important enough for him to get the publishers to change the words of Gandalf for the fourth & subsequent print runs. It is the very death/resurrection of Gandalf that makes him stand out as unique. We see that he is not simply a human magician the moment he reappears to the Three Hunters - up to then he actually is, in our minds, 'an old man in a battered hat, who leans upon a thorny staff'. After his return we know he is something more (but se still have not had it confirmed from the horse's mouth that he had really 'died'. It is only his words to Grima which confirm that.

Yet in the letter to Murray referring to Gandalf's death Tolkien puts the words 'died' & 'death' in quotes, making the point that Gandalf is not a Man or a Hobbit, so one could ask 'Even if he really 'died', did he actually Die? Well, certainly he didn't die in the sense that a Man (or a Hobbit) would die (& pass beyond the Circles of the World forever). He was a Maiar & 'died' in a very specific way, because Maiar, like Valar & Elves, are bound within the Circles off the World till the End. Hence, while he may 'really die' he doesn't actually Die.

EDIT

Now, I may have to eat humble pie here, because from the first printing Gandalf does tell Saruman that he is 'Gandalf the White who has returned from death'. But Tolkien is very specific in the Murray letter that Gandalf should have said to Wormtongue that he had 'passed through death'. The difference may seem a subtle one, certainly, & may mean nothing. However his words to Saruman could mean & certainly could be read as saying he had returned 'from death's door', from the verge of death. It is only his amended words to Wormtongue that he has passed through death that can only be taken to imply some form of 'resurrection' in a new form.

However you read it, I think the main point of this post still stands - that only after Tolkien has 'realised' that Gandalf is a Maiar can he really die & come back. If his words to Saruman were enough to make the point, why change his words to Wormtongue? We're still left with the question whether Tolkien decided after the event to clear up any possible misunderstandings. He clearly wanted his readers to be in no doubt that Gandalf had indeed died & returned (or been sent back) from death.

Anyway...

[Rhod the Red]

Yes, anyway!

[Goldberry101]

I think I preferred Gandalf the Grey to Gandalf the White. It would have been kind of sad, but what I think is sadder is the way Gandalf changed. After he "died", or whatever happened he loses all that attract you to Gandalf in the first place. Mostly his mysteriousness. When he is Gandalf the White, he's so up front and open (or more so than Gandalf the Grey), but I'd almost prefer him to have died, because I think it would have forced Aragorn and others to learn to fend for themselves more, and to be stronger leaders, then they become when he comes back as Gandalf the White. (sorry I kept switching my train of thought)

[Legolas]

Originally Posted by Goldberry101

I think I preferred Gandalf the Grey to Gandalf the White. It would have been kind of sad, but what I think is sadder is the way Gandalf changed. After he "died", or whatever happened he loses all that attract you to Gandalf in the first place. Mostly his mysteriousness. When he is Gandalf the White, he's so up front and open (or more so than Gandalf the Grey)

I don't think it is necessarily a result of the change from Grey to White. I think it's largely situational - at the point in the plot that Gandalf the White appears, everything is looking much worse for the good side. Time is running outThe Fellowship has split. Frodo and Sam are alone on the outskirts of Mordor; Merry and Pippin are in the hands of Saruman's orcs. Rohan is being attacked, providing a distraction from the goal of Ring destruction that must be dealt with nonetheless.

After the Sauron conflict is settled, we see glimpses of Gandalf the Grey's familiar personality, though those scenes are shorter now as Tolkien still had a story to finish.

[Rhod the Red]

Gandalf doesn't really change in my view, after dying. He's just more explanatory of the world-situation. He explains things more, beginning in Fanghorn Forest to Gimli, Legolas and Aragorn.

[Glaurung]

Rhod the red, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you in this. Gandalf does change. He is somehow more distant and more god-like, and therefore less like an individual character.

I think I would have enjoyed LotR more if Gandalf had died. It would in my opinion make the story somehow deeper by making the readers understand that there is no second chance. War against evil (if you want to put it like that; I myself prefer not to use that rather idiotic phrase) takes its casualities, and in war both heroes and ordinary soldiers die. The death of Gandalf would have been a perfect example of this.

Had Tolkien originally meant Gandalf to die or not, it still seems like he hadn't. The way Gandalf just appears with a "hello, I didn't die after all, nice to meet you" feels rather improper. But then again, I am a tragedy-loving person so I might not be the best one to comment on this topic.

[ninja91]

I agree with Rhod the Red. It was essential to the story for Gandalf to come back. If he stayed dead, would the men of the west even have survived? Denethor would have possibly fled Minas Tirith, without Gandalf to command a defense. Also, no dialogue between Gandalf and the Witch King, or the Mouth of Sauron. And, very importantly, possibly no aid from Erkenbrand during the Battle for Helm's Deep.
Gandalf was needed, no questions about it.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

I tend to agree with Glaurung about
Gandalf's returning. Had he not done so it
would have been (as far as surprise and plot
alteration) rather like Janet Leigh in Psycho .
And, like Bilbo in The Hobbit, it would have put
the others in a situation where they'd have
had to, as it were, "grow up" sooner. While I
like the Gandalf and the Three Walkers meeting
in TTT Gandalf in the later story is less interesting
and it wouldn't be too hard to alter the story
(such as the relief of Helm's Deep) to compensate
for his absence.

[HerenIstarion]

Putting aside all 'functional' necessity/uselessness of his return, I'll listen to my inner sentimentalist. And this chap does say that if Gandalf haven't come back...

...there would have been less joy...and less surprise...as small-scale eucatastrophes build up to the one great Eucatastrophe of Ring being destroyed, 'Gandalf returned' formed one of the cornerstones of anticipation, I've shed tears over the chapter at my first reading, and can't swear my eyes remained dry on all following rereadings.


Verdict: Leave him be, he came exactly where and when he should have come.

Wouldn't our nice message about the triumph of the race of Men, despite all the odds, be rather clear without some smug semi-seraphic septuachilogenarian running about

Vague feeling that Valar were 'smug semi-seraphic etc' and half-realized sensation of inevitable triumph of the race of Men led certain king to build certain fleet... with all the 'certain' consequences...

m-m-m... and I don't even know what 'septuachilogenarian running' might stand for... did Gandalf do some?

[Nogrod]

There surely is a host of interpretations to the relationship of Gandalf and the possible basic plot of the LotR. I would like to bring forwards one more here (it's probably not the one I myself find the most convincing, but I think it deserves mentioning).

If the whole of the LotR is seen as a battle between the Maiar in the ME, all with their own purposes, then it's clear Tolkien couldn't drop the only good guy out of the story. The key players that played their game of chess on the board of ME were surely Sauron, Saruman and Gandalf. Of these no-one was from ME, and as Maiar, they all were grades higher and more powerful than the elves. So those three played a game, using elves, orcs, men etc. as their pawns to reach the ends they had set to themselves.

So was Gandalf bluffing everyone with his trick of "death" - both his pawns and his real enemies? (Looks like a Wizard WW-game on a grand scale... )

Sidenote: I agree with Bethberry and Goldberry101, that Gandalf the Grey is much more of a character than Gandalf the White. The Grey's character had shades and nuances, the White is just the strategical & emotional "natural-born-leader": the Good-guy indeed (and those purely good ones are mostly quite boring, to be honest, evven if they are wizards).

So was Gandalf in the end the one character Tolkien had to sacrifice to the altar of the storyline?