[ SECRET POST #4463 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4463 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 42 secrets from Secret Submission Post #639.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Given the timeframe in which Martin states he read the books, Gandalf wouldn't have been revealed to be Middle Earth's variant of an angel yet, because the constructed mythology of Middle Earth hadn't been released for public consumption. The reasonable assumption then - and, to be perfectly frank, the reasonable assumption now for anyone who doesn't want to dive into the errata - is that maybe he's one of the high men like Aragorn, but still fundamentally human. Which makes his resurrection seem incredibly cheap and easy.

[tabaqui]

I just find his quote rather tone-deaf and a bit arrogant, considering that he's not a kid anymore, and everything about Gandalf, etc., is now out there for public consumption.
*shrug*

I agree with the the others up above here who also don't think he knows what he's talking about.

[(Anonymous)]

Finding how a popular writer chose to execute something narratively unsatisfying, choosing to execute it differently in your own work, and talking about one of the reasons you made those choices is neither arrogant nor tone deaf. And it's not like he can travel back in time and tell his younger self "no, see, Gandalf was really an angel and that's why your formative experience of his death and resurrection is wrong".

[tabaqui]

Yes, fine, you're a GRRM stan, awesome. I disagree with you, and frankly, I'm done. Please go argue with someone else.

[(Anonymous)]

TBH I do think the most obvious way to construe the novel is to assume that Gandalf is something other than human. Not an angel, specifically, but definitely special and set apart in some way more than Aragorn is. I think the death and resurrection is itself the strongest piece of evidence for that.

But I also agree that Tolkien didn't do a good enough job emphasizing the distinction between the two versions of the character. Which is strange because that's actually the kind of thing he's usually quite good at.

[(Anonymous)]

It's certainly a valid read, but it's not the only one to take strictly from the trilogy - Gandalf is other, but he's less other than Tom Bombadil, or the elves, or the ents, and "sorcerers are a little unearthly" is a common thread that predates Tolkien by centuries.

I think a large part of the lack of distinction between the two versions of the character is down to the fact that Gandalf is never really a core character the way the other members of the Fellowship are. He's always a little out of focus, and by the time he's resurrected there are more important things going on and more central character arcs in full swing. Focusing on his resurrection and any associated transformation would take away from the important stories, so it's left ringing a little hollow.

[(Anonymous)]

It's certainly a valid read, but it's not the only one to take strictly from the trilogy - Gandalf is other, but he's less other than Tom Bombadil, or the elves, or the ents, and "sorcerers are a little unearthly" is a common thread that predates Tolkien by centuries.

It's definitely a great point - really, much of the trilogy is indeterminate and unexplained in that way, when you approach it on its own terms and not with the benefit of the massive apparatus of lore that's developed subsequently. And that's honestly one of the things that I've always liked about it tbh, and one of the reasons I've never really vibed with the legendarium stuff.

I do think that he is other-than in a different way than the elves or the ents are - the elves and the ents are clearly different types of creatures, whereas Gandalf is sort of... in between categories. Bombadil is the best comparison, but obviously Bombadil is much more other and outside the bounds of the world than Gandalf is. Or Saruman is, or Radagast. But you're certainly right that "unearthly wizard" is a general trope there.

I really wish there was some way to go back and read fan writing from the period before the Silmarillion was released and get a handle on how people interpreted this stuff back then.

[(Anonymous)]

I really wish there was some way to go back and read fan writing from the period before the Silmarillion was released and get a handle on how people interpreted this stuff back then.

Well, you can always ask us!