🧙Gandalf's Death in Moria - An Afterthought?

There have been quite a few very good interpretations brought up and interesting comparisons made, but those were mostly intrinsic to the story.

What keeps me puzzled, though, is if Tolkien laid that much meaning into Gandalf's death and "resurrection", why then would he call the way Gandalfs return is presented a "defect in the story" and even somehow seems to accept it had been called "cheating" by a critic.
I mean if he had actually put that much thought and "inner meaning" into it, why wouldn't he utterly refuse such an interpretation as "defect" or "cheating"?

As far as I read the letter, I understand Tolkien in the way that he only accepts the cheating to be that he describes death as something that made no difference.

Gandalf really 'died', and was changed: for that seems to me the only real cheating, to represent anything that can be called 'death' as making no difference.

Click to expand...

The cheating here mentioned is the fact that death isn't something definitive as we men are used to.

And so on. I might say much more, but it would only be in (perhaps tedious) elucidation of the 'mythological' ideas in my mind; it would not, I fear, get rid of the fact that the return of G. is as presented in this book a 'defect', and one I was aware of, and probably did not work hard enough to mend.

Click to expand...

Maybe we have worked harder to mend it than Tolkien did?

Originally posted by Walter
...why then would he call the way Gandalfs return is presented a "defect in the story" and even somehow seems to accept it had been called "cheating" by a critic.

Click to expand...

I think that it is possible that Tolkien was listening to the critics a little more then he usually did on this subject was because he had some personal doubts at the time of this letter.


His earliest drafts had Gandalf destroying the Balrog and then he is flown to Lorien and clad in white by Galadierl {and this was written in 1944}

If their was any afterthought it was in hinting at mystic or divine intervention that you could take or leave at your choice.

As I look in to this matter, I find that the whole episode was elegently written.

I think i see a similarity between Gandalf and Jesus though I'm not sure if its right. Jesus gave up his life so that we could all be saved and would not have to go to hell. Gandalf may have given up his own life so that the rest of the fellowship could be saved. If Jesus hadn't died for us we would have gone to hell and if Gandalf hadn't died for them then they may have been killed and the ring taken thus leading to Sauron taking over middle earth and all of its population living in a hell on earth. But I'm not sure.
But in the end both Jesus and Gandalf (If he did die) defeated death.

With a terrible cry the Balrog fell forward, and its shadow plunged down and vanished. But even as it fell it swung its whip, and the thongs lashed and curled about the wizard's knees, dragging him to the brink. He staggered and fell, grasped vainly at the stone, and slid into the abyss. 'Fly, you fools! ' he cried, and was gone.

Click to expand...

It isn't as though he deliberately cast himself into the chasm, as a sacrificial lamb for the good of the fellowship! None other among them was capable of facing this enemy, but whether he was defeated in the exchange or not, does not constitute a conscious or willing decision to cast himself in for their benefit.

I think i see a similarity between Gandalf and Jesus though I'm not sure if its right. Jesus gave up his life so that we could all be saved and would not have to go to hell.

Click to expand...

I would put Frodo instead of Gandalf.
From The Return of the King: The Grey Havens:

I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them.

Click to expand...

Frodo is the real hero. He volunteered for his mission, no one had to ask him to do so, unlike Gandalf in Unfinished Tales, where Manwë asks him to go to ME.

I have recently read (in a Tolkien-newsgroup) that in the original version of TTT Gandalf indeed says to Grima:

...I have not passed through fire and flood...

and that this was changed to "fire and
death" in the 4th printing of TT in 1956.

Can anyone confirm this?

Was Gandalf's death an afterthought, then?

**DISCLAIMER**
**The following post is purely conjecture on my part and should in no way be thought of as evidence**

I would think that Gandalf's death was not so much of an afterthought as a later discovery. If you take the story from the begining to just prior to Gandalf taking up the mantle of "White", it would make perfect sense to have him simply make some trite cliff-hanger type of escape from the depths of Moria. Or for that matter, just leave his escape as one more of the Book's many unsolved riddles. I believe that the Good Professor had no intent to literally kill Gandalf's physical rainment, nor saw the need for it until the confortation of Saruman following the Battle of Helm's Deep.
Or to put it simply, his death became necessary only when Gandalf became "White".

Saruman began as the White:

I have come," I said. "I have come for your aid, Saruman the White." And that title seemed to anger him... For I am Saruman the Wise, Saruman Ring-maker, Saruman of Many Colours! "
'I looked then and saw that his robes, which had seemed white, were not so, but were woven of all colours. and if he moved they shimmered and changed hue so that the eye was bewildered.
' "I liked white better," I said.
' "White! " he sneered. "It serves as a beginning. White cloth may be dyed. The white page can be overwritten; and the white light can be broken."
' "In which case it is no longer white..."

Click to expand...

The "White" of Saruman, had becomed stained by the "Black" of Mordor.

Since Grey cannot defeat Black, Gandalf needed to be cleansed of all stains of the world. In short, The "Grey" was washed "White" by fire and flood.

The transformation makes perfect sense in the grand overview, but would have probably only became apparent to Tolkien once he decided that Gandalf must not only take up the mantle of leadership, but also cast Saruman physically and spiritually from their Order.



So in short, death was not an afterthought per se, but rather a logical progression that only became obvious as the story progressed.




RD


Cringing in fear at Walter's scholarly rebutal which I am fairly sure will completely destroy this pitiful attempt of a theory

I couldn't possibly compare various sources of the LOTR in order to witness the difference in that short line that excited Walt so much, for I simply don't have them available!
But the matter of comparing the various sources is, if I have correctly understood, to understand why Tolkien changed his mind about Gandalf's death!
This is what I dislike in the criticism-stage of any piece of any art!
An author creates a piece of art. And if he is a genius then I am absolutely sure that he will find a lot of "flaws" later when looking at his own creation. If he may and if he's able to - he will correct them. If not.... he may only comment on the comments of the public.
But there come the critics !!!!
And often they ascribe ideas to the author that had never crossed his mind in reality!
It is sad that it is quite a common practice that literature is being taught upon the opinions of the critics!
So... I guess Tolkien's statement in the quoted letter concerning the "cheating" and the "defect" of Gandalf's death is just his attempt to reconcile with the critics.... I can't be sure.....

From MY point of view however, I understand Gandalf's death as a necessary step in the story, sth. that must have happened.
Of course, I first of all should say that I absolutely agree with everything said here about the "death" of a Maia!
But.... I'd comment on the necessity of letting Gandalf return as "white" wizard.

Up until that moment the story as covered by the "Hobbit" and the LOTR (this far) we see a character whom I call an "organizer" . Besides, Gandlaf so far is just a "merry-old-jolly fellow who, they say, is a wizard!"
I somehow think that to turn this character into an "action hero" he must have "suffered" a certain change.... No! Not "certain" but a major one! So, Tolkien, I suppose found the most "convenient" moment to do this change to one of the central characters of his story. For the previous Gandalf would NOT be as convincing and "in-place" in the events to come in the further story.
This is how I understand the "cheating" part. It was just a "method" used by the author, a way, a"trick" of writing.
Perhaps Tolkien at a certain point understood that Gandalf as he had been up to that point would not fit in any further, so he had to be changed. The rest is only a reflection of the author's fantasy-set mind.

This is of course my opinion, but I cannot see Gandalf as any biblical character! Please!

RD this green on green is somewhat hard to read....

Other than that I have not much to criticise in your post, your theory is probably as valid as mine or maybe even more so since yours is supported by the fact that Tolkien - at some point - felt the need to change the thread of the story as we can see from Anc's quote here...

Ahhh Walter, almost a year to the very hour since this thread was last visited

I have another thought on the matter regarding Gandalfs form, his bodily form if you will. I am unsure whether there is a quote somewhere that can support my theory, but I feel that Tolkien may have considered it important to ensure that while Gandalf was housed in the body of a man, then he must, while in Middle-Earth abide somewhat by the rules that governs all men, that death finds each of us, Istari included. Even Gandalf cannot cheat death, in actual fact he cannot cheat the separation of the fea and hroa while he occupies this house. The divine intervention comes only after the death itself takes place, which of course must occur for Gandalf cannot avoid the natural separation as it takes its course following the long battle with the Balrog of Moria. He has to die like any man, even though he is Maia.

His departure from beyond the realms of Arda strangely enough seems exactly like the journey mens spirit would make as they pass from death into life to the place Eru has set aside for them. The difference being, Gandalf is sent back, unlike Men. It seems to have religious connoctations to it, yet somehow I wonder if Tolkien in doing this makes Gandalf more like Man than Maia, to glimpse the death of Man in order for Gandalf to understand why he must return and complete his task on behalf of the race of Men?!

Lhun: This is what I dislike in the criticism-stage of any piece of any art!
An author creates a piece of art. And if he is a genius then I am absolutely sure that he will find a lot of "flaws" later when looking at his own creation. If he may and if he's able to - he will correct them. If not.... he may only comment on the comments of the public.
But there come the critics !!!!
And often they ascribe ideas to the author that had never crossed his mind in reality!
It is sad that it is quite a common practice that literature is being taught upon the opinions of the critics!
So... I guess Tolkien's statement in the quoted letter concerning the "cheating" and the "defect" of Gandalf's death is just his attempt to reconcile with the critics.... I can't be sure.....

Click to expand...

I wonder how much the criticism got to Tolkien. As well as the above, he also attempted a major re-write of his cosmogony to fit it in with the actual history and state of the universe. Thankfully, it never got consistent enough to get included in the work that C.Tolkien cobbled together as The Silmarillion. I wouldn't be surprised if Lord of the Rings underwent major reconstruction if, instead of the clamour for publication, it had been lukewarmly received like the Silmarillon. Tolkien's humility wouldn't have needed much of a nudge, I suspect, for him to doubt his work, and to change it to a lesser thing, based on the ideas of people who thought they knew better.

Originally posted by Ancalagon


I have another thought on the matter regarding Gandalfs form, his bodily form if you will. I am unsure whether there is a quote somewhere that can support my theory, but I feel that Tolkien may have considered it important to ensure that while Gandalf was housed in the body of a man, then he must, while in Middle-Earth abide somewhat by the rules that governs all men, that death finds each of us, Istari included. Even Gandalf cannot cheat death, in actual fact he cannot cheat the separation of the fea and hroa while he occupies this house. The divine intervention comes only after the death itself takes place, which of course must occur for Gandalf cannot avoid the natural separation as it takes its course following the long battle with the Balrog of Moria. He has to die like any man, even though he is Maia.

His departure from beyond the realms of Arda strangely enough seems exactly like the journey mens spirit would make as they pass from death into life to the place Eru has set aside for them. The difference being, Gandalf is sent back, unlike Men. It seems to have religious connoctations to it, yet somehow I wonder if Tolkien in doing this makes Gandalf more like Man than Maia, to glimpse the death of Man in order for Gandalf to understand why he must return and complete his task on behalf of the race of Men?!

Click to expand...

Spectacular! Brilliant! Genius!
That makes all kinds of sense ( to don a phrase from Yay ), I've never really looked at it like that before.. Fantastic though!!

Anc asked me to look in here- unfortunately I don't have much to add. For those who are interested, here's (as I find it) the earliest sketch of Gandalf's fall, apparently written in late 1941 and recounted in the last few pages of HoME VI (chapt XXV THE MINES OF MORIA):

They are pursued by goblins and a B[lack] R[ider] [written above: a Balrog] after escaping from Balin's Tomb - they come to a bridge of slender stone over a gulf. Gandalf turns back and holds off [?enemy], they cross the bridge but the B[lack] R[ider] leaps forward and wrestles with Gandalf. The bridge cracks under them and the last they see is Gandalf falling into the pit with the B[lack] R[ider]. There is a flash of fire and blue light up from abyss.
Their grief. Trotter now guides party.
(Of course Gandalf must reappear later - probably fall is not as deep as it seemed. Gandalf thrusts Balrog under him and so....... and eventually following 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 and the King of Ond is being beaten in battle.)

{CT} 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.

Click to expand...

Looks like the very first idea was to give Gandalf a gentle splash-down on the back of the Balrog; so gentle in fact that he was able to immediately (no divine intervention necessary) find a way out from the subterranean passages (the balrog presumably having died during the fall).

That would have been really lame, IMO:
This is of-topic, but what was 'Ond' in these earlier versions? I asume it's Gondor because ond means 'stone'..

Your theory, Anc, sounds very convincing indeed, especially from an internal point of view, but it somehow has the air of "hindsight".

And besides, isn't it a little probematic that Tolkien created 2 different instances of "re-housing" of Maiar? On the one hand we learn that they can easily "clad" themselves with bodily forms and Tolkien seems to see no need of further explanation for the recurrent "re-housing" of Sauron. On the other hand, with Gandalf, he changes the plot even when The Lord of the Rings has been already published and goes great lengths to explain and interpret this as some sort of re-incarnation (similar to Christ's), while in the same breath he is calling it a "defect" in the story and "cheating".

Most of Tolkien's own interpretation of this issue comes from his letter to Robert Murray (Letters #156 from 1954 - where a few more arguments can be found to back up RD's line of argumentation), a close friend of the Tolkien family, who had - largely under Tolkiens influence, it is said, converted and decided to become a Jesuit priest. Unfortunately part of the letter, which deals with death and reincarnation of Gandalf is omitted by Carpenter.

I think C.T. has a strong point when he notes about his father, that:

In his later writing mythology and poetry sank down behind his theological and philosophical preoccupations: from which arose incompatibilities of tone.

C.T. in the Foreword of the Silmarillion

Click to expand...

and that the issue of Gandalf's death in Moria as an afterhought is one of these cases where Tolkien's original conception sank down behind his theological and philosophical preoccupations....

Originally posted by Lantarion
That would have been really lame, IMO:
This is of-topic, but what was 'Ond' in these earlier versions? I asume it's Gondor because ond means 'stone'..

Click to expand...

Very well combined, Watson

Ond is indeed the earliest name of the Stone-land Gondor...

Originally posted by Walter
And besides, isn't it a little probematic that Tolkien created 2 different instances of "re-housing" of Maiar? On the one hand we learn that they can easily "clad" themselves with bodily forms and Tolkien seems to see no need of further explanation for the recurrent "re-housing" of Sauron.

Click to expand...

Not sure they're so different here, Walter. Sauron's various re-housings are arduous, and take years to centuries. If Gandalf had done it that way the 3rd Age of the world would have long since passed into a fourth Age of Darkness.

Sauron's re-housing was achieved without the blessing of Eru, took longer to achieve each time and was probably the result of a massive act of will on his part.

Gandalf was re-embodied, turned round and sent back on a time scale that, compared with Sauron's, was immediate, because it had both the blessing and power of The One behind it.

I believe the capital 'O' was no accident when Aragorn said in TTT "Do I not say truly, Gandalf, that you could go withersoever you wished quicker than I? And this I also say: you are our captain and our banner. The Dark Lord has Nine. But we have One, mightier than they: the White Rider. He has passed through the fire and the abyss, and they shall fear him. We will go where he leads."

Hmm, if by this reference to 'the One' you are implying that Eru himself re-clad Gandalf, then I suppose that might be so; except that we do not know how well Aragorn understood Gandalf's true origins or the ways of Ilúvatar.
Also wouldn't it be fairly blasphemous to compare a lowly Maia to Eru Ilúvatar?!