The lord of the Rings

He didn't need to be there in the first place. Greater powers than what were employed in that battle would have engaged, and defeated the enemy out of hand, but Gandalf intervened, and in effect, changed the course in such a way as to achieve his goals. He not only defeated his prime enemy, he also managed to exclude the real power in the world with words. He got his way. The real power-players left the fight before they even considered joining it.

I have to imagine this is how the old boy saw the world unfolding.

I'd like to start comparing this bit of fiction with the time he lived in, the parallels, but I don't want to get into a flag-waving debate, either.

Perhaps. You might like to look at it as an interesting jumping off point for a meaningful discussion about literature and history, though.

Well, I tried. In poor taste? Most likely. Merit? I think it has some. I thought it might be fun to delve into the mind of an author who's had such an impact on modern, well, not thought, but cinematic cliches and modes of thinking therein. We've all seen those films, and some of us have read the books. Books are just books. I wanted to use them as a platform for deeper discussion. I don't lurk here, I don't know the norms of conduct, your memes- if you even have them here- nor how to illicit a meaningful response from the board. I will try again. You guys must be smarter, you read books, no?

fuck it, I'm going to bump this

Gandalf is probably the most truly good character in Arda. Think about it; the elves give no shits about men and will fuck off over the sea when they can't control middle earth anymore. All the other wizards are corrupted or are Radagast "Birdfucker" the Brown. No one but Gandalf has so much potential to fall to evil, and yet are able to resist the temptation of power. Gandalf is a total bro and you're just being fooled by his slightly pissy attitude when people say dumb shit.

On the surface of things I would totally agree. In a larger, panned out view, though, you have to conclude that all his 'peer' wizards have let themselves fade into the fabric of other peoples histories. And I think that is what a good wizard should do. Not him, though. He seems to be the only one who can't let the past die, the one who still feels the hurt in his butt. He can't let it go. The world changes and he refuses to let it change without him. He ingratiates himself in things, so much so that he changes the natural course of events. Take him out of the picture. What would have happened? Certain elements of that cosmology would have been attacked, even in their most sacred of places, and those folks would have, without mercy, destroyed the entirety of the opposing forces. It was Gandalf who limited to the force against to just being the weaker, it was Gandalf who united the weakest. We can say that this story was finished being written before the events of Pearl Harbor- we can look at the dates- and assume that this is how he saw the world. I'm more than open for debate, though.

I really wanna know what 27167551 actually said.

Gandalf's only aim was to teach the hobbits to defend themselves. He didn't give two shits about men, elves or dwerrows

>The world changes and he refuses to let it change without him. He ingratiates himself in things, so much so that he changes the natural course of events

Gandalf's character was much influenced by the wizard character Väinämöinen from finnic mythologies, and this is pretty much the same thing with both characters, only difference is that Gandalf gets what he wants and parts, while Väinämöinen cannot stop the change and has to leave, though he tells the people that one day they will regret their decisions and ask Väinämöinen's help once again and he shall return.

I have never seen so much concentrated bullshit in one place before. It's impressive.

Gandalf was the student of one of the least douchey Ainur, but the fact is he was still sent by Manwe. Who is a psychopath, in my very uneducated opinion.

>Silmarillion

Fuck yes.
Gandalf was mentored by Nienna, who seems pretty chill. She taught him compassion and shit. He liked to hang out with hobbits, making them fireworks and shit. That's a pretty cool thing for him to do. The fact that Gandalf is from Valinor and isn't aggressively an active douche bag all the time is admirable. I would be honored to be someone he thought was okay.

>Giving an elf the ring

Holy shit, that is the worst idea. They'd probably start having more kids just so they can have proper kinslayings over jewelry again. Them going to the west is probably for the best.
But there's no way he resented the elves. Maybe he didn't connect with them as much as other races, but hating elves makes you satan. And resenting Eru is only something Melkor actively did and look what happened to him.

Gandalf getting so involved with the ring was basically him trying to clean up after his brother who decided to run off and have a 'You're not my dad' phase that got millions killed and half of Middle Earth Atlantis'd, just off the top of my head for shitty things Sauron did.
Mordor was mobilizing for war anyway, if he had done nothing the Nazgul would probably just have went into the shire, killed everyone, then brought the ring back to Sauron. Then everyone would be fucked. Could Gandalf have done a better job? Yeah. But he did his best and had his heart in the right place. And for a Tolkien character to have a heart at all is impressive.

My verdict is that Gandalf is a totally righteous dude.

fan.lib.ru/img/e/eskov/last_ringbearer_engl/last_ring_bearer.pdf

This is a Russian fan novel based off the premise that the Lord of the Rings is a 'written by the winners' deal. Mordor is a pretty decent place here who's attacked by the elves and Gandalf because they feel threatened by the power industrialization would bring to Mordor.
Here's a fan translation. Might be your thing.

If you take Gandalf out of context of Sauron, then you can draw conclusions that he is a "negative" force in Middle Earth

I'm a pleb from the shire and I'm on that Longbottom leaf but here goes:

Gandalf as defender of classical liberal ideals in a modernist narrative

What makes Gandalf good are the principles he apparently stands for, which make sense considering Tolkein's background. Conversely, Sauron seemingly represents foreign, authoritarian means of controlling and exploiting nature (and the free-willed) for his own nebulous purpose.

Gandalf is tending to a world he wants to see progress, where members of the world can assert their will, instead of allowing it to devolve into authoritarian chaos by the spook of "Sauron", an unremorseful umbrella of evil (vaguely yet not quite divine) authoritarianism. The "sauron" endgame disregards the well-being of those carrying out "his" will, for banal, "inhuman" progress, versus arbitrary, distributed, and flawed "human" progress. Through the narrator, Tolkein presents this as near-sighted and crude. I can see why you would challenge Gandalf exerting any influence at all as self-serving or destructive, but relative to Sauron, the people inhabiting the world don't seem to survive Sauron's goals, and if they do, they will only survive as slaves. The narrator seems to believe self-determinism to be more interesting and ideal, compared to a boring, smoldering ruin devoid of fat silly hobbits, controlled by a single ego (if "Sauron" were ever real, and not a spook). It makes sense why Tolkein would write a sheppard into the narative involving sheep who are completely unaware of the divinity that exists in their universe, and by extension, a wish that "good" or "benevolent" forces, if they were to exist in our world, would defeat evil and authoritarianism, if only to perpetuate free will, as opposed to reverting the universe to meaningless darkness.

Gandalf as politician

Gandalf the "man" has an agenda, sure, and you can interpret his political schemings and his influence on Men as carrying out that agenda. Gandalf enables Men to take control of Middle Earth, but this does not seem like the conquering of Orcs, but teaching inhabitants of the world his own stewardship of the realm, and presumably passing it on completely (until they really fuck things up). This is hardly evil compared to allowing Sauron/Saruman to destroy the lives of free-willed folk for (presumably) no reason other than amassing power. Sauron's destruction of "natural" beauty in the pursuit of his Evil agenda (control?), which is really an attempt to achieve the divine, godlike power that by definition he glimpsed and was a part of, but could never posses, or constitute in it's entirety. Gandalf uses deception to navigate the political realms of men, but never for direct personal gain, or out of spite. He gives Theoden counsel but does not put him under a spell (as far as we know, but if wormtongue and saruman could do it, he probably could too). Instead, he allows Theoden and Aragorn (and Denethor) to come to their own conclusions about how to govern and care for their people. If he were "evil" I doubt he would have left anything up to chance to defeat S and S.

Saruman emulates Sauron's Melkorian politics (abusing "pure" resources as a middle finger to the spiritual powers that spawned middle earth). He literally sides with Sauron (presumably), but is figuratively siding with Sauron's ambition of brandishing his own will for the sake of having everything "his way". But abusing power to reshape the material world is ungodly behavior (from Gandalf's point of view) and Gandalf confroting the Balrog and brought back to "life" implies that, as a political choice, his sacrifice represents more than Sauron was ever willing to give to a people he had no reason to be helping. Which seems to outweigh objections that he was mucking with the lives of everyone around him for personal gain, besides wanting to keep his favorite little people (and favorite weed) from being destroyed at the hands of tyrants.

Gandalf as opposition to the Modernist "Evil" that is Sauron

I don't understand the end-goal of "Sauron" or Saruman, especially since Sauron is never presented as a character able to articulate himself. (Besides the mouth of sauron, which is an echo, and by extension, a distortion of his actual desires). All we know is his wanting to "kill all men" (and dwarves, elves, presumably all the orcs once he is done with them), making "Sauron" a reflection of all "evil" authoritarian forces within the fabric of Middle Earth, and which, presumably, will always be a part of the universe.

Tolkien's Modernist concept of Evil makes sense as a child but it can only paint a barren wasteland of "Good is defeated, everything you love is gone" when followed to its conclusion.
Gandalf is presumably good because he stands against a force that is presumably bad, it is difficult to pin down beyond the actions either side takes with respect to the victims, and there is of course precedent than Gandalf could become just as evil as Saruman. Is Gandalf the future vector for "Sauron" to reappear? Is the last "good" man standing the future tyrant of any world?

Of course this whole thread / debate on whether Gandalf is an agent of "good" or "evil" presupposes this concept is valid or not. Assuming we care whether or not any agent on middle earth can be "good" or "evil", it seems clear that Gandalf has a side that he stands up for; he is objectively a force for "good" if you are a member of the Fellowship, but it is difficult to define what that means for the universe of the lord of the rings.

Gandalf as a otherworldly participant

Middle Earth is somewhere the G-man actively lives in; a world he smokes weed with hobbits in, and tames horses in, and presumably slays mad elven pussy in. He only lives in it as a lower dimension, and is reintroduced after his corporeal form is defeated . He can travel between divinity, and is not sitting around in Middle Earth because he has to, but moreso a gardener of it's spiritual and cultural progress. Presumably Sauron plays by the same rules, though is "exiled" to Middle Earth (and if this exile can be breached, so he can return to divinity, and take that over to, then it makes sense why he doesn't care about any life in Middle Earth -- it might as well be a hologram to him). When finally "destroyed", Sauron is presumably defeated through sheer force of will of the free people of Middle Earth, and his authoritarianism fades into irrelevancy because he is no longer participating in the world. But it doesn't mean it can not return, and if Gandalf were evil, it would be he who inevitably takes over. It's pretty Christian (surprise) way of thinking optimistically about divine power, and Gandalf is presumably a benevolent (lesser) deity, who suffers along with the world he shepherds. One which can, at times, and tries to influence without overstepping his boundaries or robbing the citizens of free will; this of course can be looked at from a different perspective. "Sauron"'s endgame leaves no room for free will, (presumably for personal gain, as if it would matter whether a deity could "control" a world in the way that it mattered if a human "controlled" an MMO server).

But taking the actions literally, Sauron's goal is complete control of the Middle Earth sandbox (and beyond?). In contrast, Gandalf wants to continue to influencing and experiencing Middle Earth, and we are supposed to assume he is a benevolent guardian instead of another authoritarian using a difference set of pawns to topple his enemy. So if Gandalf's net goals were as similar to Sauron's that they were indistinguishably authoritarian controllers arbitrarily influencing one space or dimension, and it was "objectively" in the disinterest of Middle Earth for him to continue, he would not have been resurrected (presumably) because forces above Gandalf's control would be using Gandalf in the way Gandalf is using others in Middle Earth, and he could not be blamed for continuing his crusade against Mordor

Gandalf is more like a gardener or moderator than a latent tyrant; protecting and celebrating the fruits of his labor is really all he has to do while on ME (see: finest weed of the south farthing); preserving, albeit influencing, the free will of the people and being interested in the choices they make, and the lives they lead, more or less is his purpose, and if he is acting out his purpose, it is hard to judge whether Gandalf could be "evil" if an extra dimensional being could be considered evil with respect to a hologram

I didn't mean this for this to be taken as a thesis, but a preface:

>If you take Gandalf out of context of Sauron, then you can draw conclusions that he is a "negative" force in Middle Earth
What I mean is , Gandalf COULD be construed as negative, when you think of him as yet another powerful actor within the universe of LOTR, but in various ways seems to only represent a benevolent force for good, if one could exist at all

>fan novel

More like hate novel.

>it's this thread again
/tv/ you aren't clever or original

If anyone was Lucifer it would be Melkor.

You raise some really interesting points, OP. For instance, is it worse to be a troll and say idiotic shit but know that it's idiotic, or to be genuine and truthful but actually believe your own garbage opinions?

This whole thread reminds me of when Shaw said Esther from Bleak House was a hypocrite.

What a fucking moron.

What is the quality of these books that they're not taken seriously in the world of fine literature?

>Character dies and gets resurrected
>Character is a miracle/magic producing niceguy.jpg
>Character is sent from -Not Heaven- to "Middle Earth"
>user thinks he's a Lucifer insert