Talk:Gandalf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Middle-earth Wikiproject This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.
Assessment
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top
This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on January 13, 2008. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Contents

[edit] Born again or resurrected?

Born again or resurrected?I know Tolkien wasn`t writing allegory,but given he was Roman Catholic don`t you think there are conscious or unconscious similarities between him and Christ? andyc

PS.By the way RESPECT to all you Tolkien scholars.No offence intended.

Well, he was a Maia, so his fea was immortal. He was just given a new hroa. He couldn't really die in a human sense (human fea leaves Arda until the end of times). Ausir 08:25, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Reincarnated and enhanced. Gandalf the White was not the same as Gandalf the Grey: he had become more powerful, and more wise. He was directly reincarnated by Eru Ilúvatar, after the plan of the Valar had failed with Gandalf's death, Saruman's betrayal and the failure of Radagast and the Ithryn Luin. Had Gandalf not been brought back by Ilúvatar, he would have had to return to Valinor and there slowly recover from his hurts before he could become Olorin the Maia again. But Eru Ilúvatar seems to have elevated Gandalf almost to the status of Sauron or other great Maiar: compare the relatively simple Grey Pilgrim with the millitary commander Gandalf the White in Minas Tirith. — Jor (Talk) 15:10, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
How do you know all this?
yeah, WP:CITE. There are connections to Christ. In Tolkien's terms, "applicability", not "allegory"; the distinction is rather fine. The role of Christ is rather distributed over several characters: Gandalf (divine emissary, death and resurrection), Frodo (passion / self-sacrifice, carrying the 'sin of the world' uphill (Mount Doom / Golgatha), assorted wounds by 'fang, tooth and blade') and Aragorn (Christ triumphant, the returned King) dab (ᛏ) 07:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
When Eru sent him back Gandalf was 'resurrected' in the sense that his spirit returned to his original body - which was still injured. There was no new body. --CBDunkerson 21:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
the same happened to Jesus. He spent three days in the underworld and returned to his worn-out body after that. dab (ᛏ) 18:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
quote: "Had Gandalf not been brought back by Ilúvatar, he would have had to return to Valinor and there slowly recover from his hurts before he could become Olorin the Maia again." excuse me, but as for what I know that applies only to elves's feas, that after a slow recovery could be allowed to reincarnate, because they are bound to Arda until the very end of Arda itself unlike the fea of men. But for Ainur beings (Vala or Maia) corporal form are like clothes, as stated in the Silmarillion and an Aiunur could build his corporal form as desired and as made possible by their spiritual power and status. Example of Aiunr's phisica death and return that may help in understand this may be: Sauron after the destruction of Numenor was able to rebuild a physical form by itself, and the limits of not being able to make it pleasant to mortal's eyes may be linked by his raged spiritual status and not to lack of power; only the destruction of the Ring, that seriously hampered his spiritual powers, made him incapable of furter gather his powers to build a dangerous material form. Likewise, the death of Saruman and his subsequent vanishing as a grey cloud (after revealing long years of death on his corpse) his not linked by the physical wound inflicted by Wormthongue but his rather due to the spiritual death subsequent to the submission to Sauron and/or finally to the ban casted by Gandalf that definitely depleted Saruman of his residual spiritual powers symbolized by the staff. After the battle on the peak, so, Gandalf may be returned by the phisical death experience rebuilding a corporal form with his own spiritual powers (increased by the cathartic experience and by the new consciuosness of his role), or with the support of the Valar, or even with the support of Eru as you suggest. We cannot know because all those solutions are possible, maybe this was intended as a puzzle for the readers like other unsoluted things. quote: "compare the relatively simple Grey Pilgrim with the millitary commander Gandalf the White in Minas Tirith." IMHO Gandalf seem more self-conscious after the reincarnation, rather than more powerful; notably the "new" Gandalf broke the staff of Saruman and challange the King of Nazghuls but don't forget that the "old" Gandalf fought and killed the Balrog a thing probably even beyond the powers of the Nazghuls and of Saruman himself wose power was more in convincing rather than in fighting. And many of the powers of Gandalf may come from the Ring of the Fire, that he even held before the "reincarnation". Maybe the more remissive behaviour of the "old" Gandalf should be seen more likely to be respect for the role of Saruman and for the people that trusted him electing him as the White rather than lack of spiritual power.
Quote: "...notably the "new" Gandalf broke the staff of Saruman and challange the King of Nazghuls but don't forget that the "old" Gandalf fought and killed the Balrog..." Yes, "old" Gandalf killed the Balrog, this due to both he being a Maia (in power roughly equal to it) and as he says on the bridge, "...wielder of the Flame of Anor", referring to his Red Ring, Narya, which apparently granted him extra power. However--being still second in the order of the Istari, it would have been impossible for him to break Saruman's staff until he became Gandalf the White. It has even been suggested that he could not have been killed in his new form; he definitely underwent a major change and "upgrade" if you will to make up for what the other four Istari could not do, and complete the mission he was sent for.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.7.126.231 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Der Berggeist. at auction

Der Berggeist is the painting from which Galdalf was inspired. It is for Auction at Christies of London:

http://search.sothebys.com/jsps/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?&lot_id=4GHDR (NOTE: registration required to access! Bill W. Smith, Jr.)

Does anyone think this should be mentioned.

The spirit that *was* called Gandalf by some folk of Middle Earth was "sent back" to Middle Earth after the destruction of his original mortal form, and was provided a new form, similar to his old one. This is probably not the same as reincarnation because the spirit that was given mortal form, the spirit of Gandalf, was never truly human and never truly mortal.

Also, as to the picture of "Gandalf" from the film. Shouldn't there be a seperate photo, one for a film section of the entry, and one for the entry of the character in the books. If we're being snazzy about it, perhaps the earliest possible drawing of Gandalf should be used for the literary Gandalf illustration.

is there a drawing by Tolkien of Gandalf? dab (ᛏ) 08:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Artist & Illustrator images 89, 91, 100, and possibly 104. --CBDunkerson 21:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

It says it was auctioned off for "84,000." Can someone please put in correct monitary units (dollars, pounds, euros, etc)? - JustinWick 08:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the Madlener painting

I suspect that the postcard Tolkien had was only in black and white (so that the orange cloak was not visible to him). Does anyone know for sure? dab (ᛏ) 08:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Eagles at the battle of 5 armies

In the article it says that Gandalf brings the army of eagles. When I read the book I was under the impression that the eagles themselves had sensed trouble brewing, and gathered their army. Am I just confused? --Sebbyj

You are correct. --CBDunkerson 10:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bilbo going to the Undying lands

I thought Bilbo died at Rivendale? Lucifer(sc) 14:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No, see the last few pages of Lord of the Rings. He goes on the 'last ship' with Frodo, Elrond, Gandalf, Galadriel, et cetera. --CBD T C @ 15:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

To be technical about it they all set sail to Tol Eressea not Valinor so I'm not sure if that qualifies as the undying lands. --Darkling235 23:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly copyright violation?

An anonymous user at 70.181.69.136 recently added some text to this article that appears to be taken from this site. This may be a violation of the site's copyright, unless the anon is the copyright holder. I've reverted it for now, and if the anon is the copyright holder he or she can restore the text. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ToC

the ToC makes sense as it is now, I think, but somebody should go over it and replace h1 with h2 and h2 with h3 to conform with WP practice. dab (ᛏ) 11:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gandalfr [sic]

I believe placing [sic] after Gandalfr in the main article is the correct convention. [Sic] is used to demonstrate that an apparent typo is in fact correct. User:Dbachmann argues in his edit summary that the html warning written in the article's source should suffice, but I think

  1. [Sic] is the standard convention.
  2. Passersby may see the spelling and just assume the article is flawed, hurting Wikipedia's image.
  3. Seeing the [sic] will save some work for both editors and Wikipedia's servers as well-intentioned users (like myself) constantly click "edit this page," realize the truth, and hit "back" or some such.

This is a relatively small point; thanks for the attention to detail Dbachmann, let's just try to get the best solution. Draeco 18:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's a pretty insignificant point, but I think that "[sic]" is helpful in this case — most casual readers won't recognize the nominative form of an Old Norse name, and will assume "Gandalfr" to be a typo. They shouldn't have to click on "edit this page" to realize that it's supposed to be that way. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


granted, it's a small point. Saying [sic] when quoting actual other people's typos is one thing. Saying [sic] when quoting correct Old Norse is telling your reader you think they are morons. At least I would feel treated as a moron if an author sicced me with something as trivial as an Old Norse nominative. The html comment is there because there are always, empirically, people on the internet with no clue about Old Norse who decide they have to edit Old Norse words regardless. The premise on WP should be, "only edit existing pages if you know what you are doing". If you don't know, sit back and learn. If people do click edit and see the comment, hey, they'll have learned something. dab (ᛏ) 18:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. Sic (Latin) says:
Sic is a Latin word meaning "thus" or "so", used inside brackets [sic] to indicate that an unusual (or incorrect) spelling, phrase, or other preceding quoted material is intended to be read or printed exactly as shown, and is not a transcription error.
This may be used either to show that an uncommon or archaic usage is reported faithfully (for instance, quoting the U.S. Constitution, "The House of Representatives shall chuse [sic] their Speaker...") or to highlight an error, often for purposes of ridicule or irony (for instance, "Dan Quayle famously miscorrected a student's spelling to 'potatoe' [sic]").
I think this would be a perfectly valid example of the "unusual spelling" or "uncommon usage ... reported faithfully". I also think that Old Norse nominatives are obscure enough that pointing them out with "[sic]" isn't an insult to the reader. I think that we should either say " Gandalfr [sic] appears in the list of Dwarves..." or spell out that it's an Old Norse name ("The Old Norse name Gandalfr appears..."). You might think that should be obvious from the mention of the Elder Edda, but it's better to be explicit than invite misunderstanding. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, since we say the name is Old Norse, the 'sic' seems to indicate that Gandalfr is somehow uncommon in Old Norse which is not the case. Otherwise, we seem to say that Old Norse itself is somehow uncommon, which is rather povvy. -- Ah, sorry; that's whay you are saying. You mean it is less than obvious that "Elder Edda" implies "Old Norse". In that case, I'd certainly prefer to say "The Old Norse name Gandalfr is taken from the blah blah". I'd be happy with that. dab (ᛏ) 18:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, good suggestion Josiah Rowe. - Draeco 19:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Right, I'll change the page to that. Never mind, Draeco's done it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Use of power

Here's a thought about Gandalf's use of power in The Lord of the Rings books. Whereas Sauron, also a Maia, directly puts forth all his will and might in the Second and Third Ages in his attempt to conquer Middle-earth, Gandalf uses his power as an Istari sparingly and only at great need, instead using his position of authority to rally the Men of Gondor and Rohan against Sauron.

My question is: is this discussion relevant to Wikipedia, and if so, where is the proper place for it? What does everyone think? I'm interested in input. Cheers. !mAtt™ 18:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It was part of the mandate of the Istari in general, wasn't it? I can't remember if it was in Unfinished Tales or in Appendix B of LotR, but IIRC the Istari were positively forbidden to oppose Sauron by force, but were supposed to be organizers, advisors, and inspirers; nor were they supposed to cow men into obedience by overawing them with power, which is one reason they were sent in humble shapes. Possibly Gandalf the White had a freer hand as well as more power at his disposal, but I don't think his basic mission changed. It certainly would not be out of place to mention it here, I think, as it's basic to what Gandalf was supposed to be doing. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character development

While all that information in the Character development section is INTERESTING, I don't think it's necessarily important enough to have its own section. (I am talking about the content, not the quanity or quality). Personally, I think it could be shortened and cut a whole lot more and go under a section called 'Trivia'. —Mirlen 01:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. More description of Gandalf's personality is needed (see the LOTR wiki for example), rather than Tolkien's convoluted etymologies. The flow of the article has been improved by your rearrangements. - Papeschr 04:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :). I'll look onto the LotR wiki article as I cut and reformat the whole section under Trivia later, depending on how much time I have. I will get to it, though. —Mirlen 04:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Cheers! I might do the same if inspiration hits ~ Papeschr 08:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

um, what? the actual development of the character goes under "trivia" while the Jackson movie portrait goes to the top, and Gandalf "was a pre-eminent, ancient mage". I'm sorry, but where in any of Tolkien's writings is Gandalf referred to a "mage", or even an "ancient mage"? It seems like the article was butchered on March 18, so we'll just have to revert to before that date. Don't do that please. dab (ᛏ) 17:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

the actual development of the character goes under "trivia"
yes, this is an Encylopedic article about Gandalf, not a fanboy's dissertation on Tolkien minutiae.
where in any of Tolkien's writings is Gandalf referred to a "mage" or even an "ancient mage"?
Who cares? A mage uses magic. You reverted (vandalised) a lot of work in your righteous fury. Why not just change the word 'mage' if you don't like it. If he's several thousand years old I'd call that ancient.
Reverting to last version by Mirlen Papeschr 19:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, a magician uses magic. A mage, properly speaking, is a Persian religious functionary. He was, in fact, far more like an angelic power than he was either a mage or a magician. "Wizard" was carefully chosen for its association with wisdom, not magic, which Gandalf uses very sparingly anyway. And sorry, but character development is obviously relevant in an article about a fictional character. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional wizards or Fictional magicians?

Where does Gandalf fit in better? Category:Fictional wizards is a subset of Category:Fictional magicians, and currently is populated by male Harry Potter characters, whereas the parent category has Elric, Thulsa Doom, and Tim the Enchanter, among others... 202.81.183.37 03:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Tolkien made an intentional distinction between wizards and magicians, sorcerers, enchanters, et cetera. Gandalf was a "wizard". Specifically, that term was used because of its etymological relationship to the word 'wise'... making it a closer translation for 'Istari' than the other terms. --CBDunkerson 11:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the image

I emphatically reject this edit whether Jackson's adaptation is "wonderful" is a matter of taste. Whether Tolkien's books are "wonderful" likewise. There can be no debate about that. However to imply that Jackson's adaptation is justified in 'monopolizing' treatment of Tolkien topics on Wikipedia just because much of these articles were originally written during the Jackson hype is quite another matter. Any image, unless drawn by JRRT himself, can of course be discussed for pertinence. Sure, we can have some Jackson stills. But in general, the images shown at the top should be selected so that a fair distribution of notable artists is acheived. In this case, this means that we should select the Howe image precisely because we have far too many Jackson images already. dab (ᛏ) 13:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

See also point six. Bryan 19:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
since that is a "suggested guideline", it appears the present discussion should be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth, then. I sound a bit over-zealous above, it's not a big deal either way, it's just that the Jackson stills get on my nerves by now, but there are of course also extremely cheesy book illustrations. If at all possible, we should pick illustrations by Tolkien, or approved of by Tolkien (Baynes?); I don't know if this is possible in the case of Gandalf, beyond the Berggeist. I realize that "Jackson's Gandalf" is really directly based on "Howe's Gandalf", so that there is arguably not that much of a difference in this case. dab (ᛏ) 20:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Pauline Baynes drew the fellowship for the 1973 calendar, [1]; the characters are facing away from the spectator (this is obviously intentional, I suppose not to deprive the readers of the chance to imagine the faces themselves, happy times...); I agree of course that a Gandalf seen from behind would be strange in an infobox, but maybe the image can be used on Fellowship of the Ring. dab (ᛏ) 20:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gandalf's staff

I erred somewhat in the edit summary to my recent revision on this subject. It was wrong of me to say there was no evidence. It's more fair to say that the preponderance of the evidence seems to support a tertium quid and neither of the alternatives that had been present. It is at least equally likely that it is more akin to a staff of office, and that he is required by "the rules" to use it whenever he is acting in his capacity as an "angelic" emissary. That he might appear to channel his power through it at times would, in this view, be a mere convenience for him. One support for this is that Saruman's power was effectively removed when Gandalf broke his staff, in a way that Gandalf's was not when his first staff broke. (He killed the Balrog without it.) Gandalf was able to take up a new staff afterward. If it were a magical tool then Saruman could simply have taken up a new one as well, but his staff was broken as an "official" act by Gandalf that deprived him of his authority to act in that way. That the movie chose to treat the staff as if it were a magical tool is neither here nor there as far as the book is concerned.

We cannot, of course, include this argument in the article without references that say essentially the same thing, but I don't know of any. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted that in the movie adaptation of the Fellowship of the Ring, Gandalf has his staff taken from him after battling Saruman. Yet after he escaped it somehow returns. How did that happen? Did he steal his staff back offscreen, did he create a new one or was it a simple error? It seems plausible that Gandalf could recreate his staff, but if he chose to do so why didn't Saruman?

It's a plot hole introduced from monkeying too much with the story. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe Saruman simply didn't have the time to recreate his staff since he was killed moments later.

That's for the film version... I believe promotional material for the films say G. the Grey uses two staffs in FotR. In the book no mention is made of him losing his staff until the battle with the Balrog, where it broke. Of course G. the White has a new, different staff in both book and trilogy. Uthanc 04:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gandalf the Ghey?

I was just searching for the word 'ghey' to see if I could find some vandalism to fix, and noticed that the page Gandalf the Ghey exists(And redirects to Gandalf). Is there a reason for this OTHER than vandalism? (Also, could somebody explain how they would go around fixing that?) elnerdo 17:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

New threads on the bottom, please. Place a {{prod}} template on the page and it should get deleted soon. It's a relic of a vandal's page move of this article a while back. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Suspicions of Saruman

It was also at about this time that he first began to be suspicious of Saruman, especially after Saruman went into Isengard.

That statement is in the main article, but I think it is confusing, Saruman had taken over Isengard 200 years before Bilbo found the ring. I'm not sure how to phrase this or if it is agreed that we should edit it.

What does everyone else think?

Carl Sixsmith 06:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's very misleading, bordering on false; I've removed the reference to Isengard. Tolkien states in one of the discussions of the Istari that Saruman's occupation of Isengard showed in the beginning a genuine desire to help shore up the defenses of Gondor and Rohan. It was only after he looked in the palantir of Orthanc that he was snared by Sauron's desire for the Ring. Elphion (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Mckellenthewhite.jpg

Image:Mckellenthewhite.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gandalf and Vainomoinen

While Tolkien was greatly influenced by the Finnish language and the Kalevala, it's not Gandalf that resembles Vainomoinen so much as Tom Bombadil. Vainomoinen is a bard and masters his environment by knowing the names of things and the right song to sing. He's also a lusty hero, trying to chase down a beautiful nymph-like wife (the daughter of the witch of the north)-- hence Goldberry, an animistic forest spirit that Tom takes to wife (having better luck than Vainomoinen, by the way). There are some similarities with Gandalf, but beyond a doubt the inspiration for Tom Bombadil--and perhaps Tolkien's stubborn loyalty to this 'early' character that he wouldn't give up despite acknowledging that he didn't quite fit in--was Tolkien's knowledge of and liking for Vainomoinen. If you are interested in a short recap of the influence of Finnish and the Kalevala on Tolkien, google the article I wrote in 2006 in AGENDA magazine. 169.253.4.21 (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)David Allen Schlaefer

[edit] Gandalf and Jentillak

Was Tolkien aware of the application of the norse "gandr / staff" connection to the basque "jentilliak"? and is there any evidence that he applied anything of their nature to Gandalf? --Davémon (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How old is Gandalf?

I missed it when I last read the book, but in the second movie, Gandalf just claimed to have lived for 3000 generations of men. What does that put him, 90,000 years old or so? Llamabr (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

He arrived in middle earth around 1000 years into the first age, he left in the year 3021, so he spent around 2020 years in in the guise of Gandalf. He was actually a Maia though, and existed before the creation of the universe as we know it. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Carl Sixsmith (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)