Hmm. I thought it was stated that the Istari “took the form of Man”. To me that implies that the face Gandalf wore in the Third Age, and thus did not appear in his “natural born” visage.
Edit: Anyway, my point was that it doesn’t surprise me that people could mistake Gandalf for another mortal magic user. There should be many tales of such people.
About Gandalf and Cirdan, the Silmarillion has this to say:
So it seems to me he recognized Gandalf’s nature, seeing through his disguise. Cirdan would not have known Olorin as a Maiar, as he never left M-E.
Pretty much this; I mean, why would this be a topic of casual conversation, exactly?
Well, most of the time, no. But some of these conversations were attended by Dwarves and Men. Would the Elves assume that the Dwarves and Men were working with the same knowledge and assumptions that the Elves were?
Would the Elves care?
Of all the wizards, only Gandalf seemed to get anything done. And even that is because his bosses gave him an ‘extra life’ . The two blue wizards, do they do anything? Radaghast isn’t even in the LOTR movies; they should’ve had him leading the army of ents against Isengard. And Saruman got corrupted by the One Ring.
But from a writing standpoint it does give good tension in the story. The Istari are fallible. None of the leaders of men really trust any of them. Some, like Radaghast seem to have gotten too attached to Middle Earth to really do much productive things. Gandalf had the most allies and the most sense, yet him and a Balrog double KOed each other which made the whole quest seem all but hopeless. I mean if this badass wizard died not halfway through their journey, what chance would two emo guys, Rambo elf and a bunch of ewoks have?
Plus if he was too badass it would have stolen Aragon’s thunder.
Ha!
But seriously, why invite them if you don’t really want their input?
And if you want that input, don’t you think it only natural that you and they are all operating with the same intel and whatnot?
Tolkien’s buddy C. S. Lewis, of course, brings together the Numenor and Merlin legends in That Hideous Strength. In the book, Merlin is one of the last inheritors of a magical tradition that came east after the fall of Numenor, and persisted a few centuries after the birth of Christ.
:eek: I did not know that.
I haven’t read much of Lewis’ stuff… just The Witch, the Lion, and the Wardrobe, which to me felt as if it was aimed at a younger audience.
About 400 years of European folklore and mythology, actually. The word wizard derives from the Anglo-Saxon verb witan, “to know”, and by the 1550s it had come to mean “Practitioner of magic, sorcerer”. A 13th century scholar called Michael Scot was nicknamed “Michael the Wizard”, and Mary, Queen of Scots’ lover Francis Hepburn was called “the Wizard Earl of Bothwell”. Rowling’s wizards are closer to the traditional definition of the word than Tolkien’s.
Except he spelled it “Numinor”, probably to suggest the word “numinous”.
Mostly it was that he had only heard it read aloud by Tolkien during meetings of the Inklings. From the treasury of old philological lore stored in his mind Lewis drew what must have seemed the most likely spelling of a word he’d never seen written. Of course with his philology he would have seen at once how numinous derives from Latin numen. Letter E and all. He would have gone on to tell you how in Latin it originally meant God giving you a nod. Obviously, Studies in Words is my favorite book by him.
I didn’t put much time or thought into that one-line post, but my semi-serious point was that, when you describe a character as a “wizard,” what people are going to think that means, or associate with that word, is probably going to depend on what other “wizard” characters immediately spring to mind.
Nowadays, the best-known characters who are described as “wizards” are probably the ones in Harry Potter and in Tolkien, although there are plenty of other, less prominent examples.
In the mid-20th century when Tolkien was writing, the characters that the general public would have been most likely to think of as “wizards” were, I’m guessing, the Wizard of Oz (who is actually a “humbug” wizard without actual magical power), and Merlin from the Arthurian legends (who in most accounts is somehow magical by nature, not just an ordinary human who has studied magic). Fantasy aficionados would also be familiar with the various wizards appearing in sword-and-sorcery tales.
I don’t get this; The humans and dwarves might not know how the world was shaped, either, or that once upon a time it was lit by two great lamps, but you know, this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Part of the whole POINT is that Gandalf’s opinion isn’t necessarily better or right just because he’s a Maia.
The whole fact that he’s an “angel” is basically irrelevant to the story and it’s certainly irrelevant to the Council of Elrond, which what you seemed to be discussing here?
Lewis wrote one series–Narnia–and one trilogy, which is known as the Space Trilogy as there’s no official name for it. Narnia is definitely written for children, although done well enough that it can be enjoyed as an adult. Anyway, I’d suggest the Space Trilogy, which is Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength. That said, most people I’ve talked to about that trilogy think that it gets worse over time. But at least give the first one a shot.
But Tolkien’s appear in traditional guise. It’s really not a problem, for the very shallow version of the story given in the film, to elide the actual difference.
Agreed that it wasn’t strictly necessary to the movies, and that PJ might not’ve had rights to Gandalf’s backstory anyway. Not much to add except this link to a poem you might like (see post 4): We Need Your Votes!! in the Anthology Thread of the February 2012 SDMB Poetry Sweatshop! - Cafe Society - Straight Dope Message Board
No, I don’t think it’s irrelevant at all. (And I did indeed have that council meeting in mind.)
The Men and Dwarves are going to want to know (if they don’t already) why are we deciding something (the One Ring is explained), and who are we debating this with.
But I guess by this time Gandalf has already established a reputation as some sort of traveling sage of wisdom, even if they don’t realize he’s Maia.
Yes, exactly. “That guy who helped us with the dragon” or “That guy who showed up right before two thousand orcs” is a much more powerful reputation than “Some elves claim he’s an immortal spirit, but he just looks like some old dude to me.”
I agree it’s a plot hole, and we don’t accept plotholes plugged in the book in other works. The Eagle thing is actually obliquely covered, but why Gandalf can’t just use his powers to curbstomp Sauron’s forces isn’t explained. We know why he can’t directly help Frodo, but not this. His power levels just seem inconsistent.
Still, it’s no more a plothole than how the Joker can do what he can do in The Dark Knight, and people love that movie. Plotholes don’t necessarily break movies.
If you’re going into sword & sorcery, it’s impossible to ignore Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser, created by Fritz Leiber who invented the phrase “sword & sorcery.” Many women of Fafhrd’s homeland practiced Ice Magic & the Mouser had been apprenticed to a “traditional” wizard in his youth. But the heroes’ wizardly patrons were Ningauble of he Seven Eyes & Sheelba of the Eyeless Face–quite uncanny & tricksy in the extreme…