WI: Tolkein Let Gandalf Die

"Tolkien made the wrong choice when he brought Gandalf back. Screw Gandalf. He had a great death and the characters should have had to go on without him." - George R.R Martin

The resurrection of Gandalf is a debated point of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. See here.

What if J.R.R. Tolkein had allowed Gandalf to be killed and remain dead, rather than being resurrected later in the story as Gandalf the White?

To clarify, the purpose of this is not to discuss an in-universe alternate history. Hence why this is not for ASB. The purpose is to discuss how the books, recognizing them as books, would have progressed and how their plot would have turned out with that alternate narrative decision, the effects of it all on popular culture related to LOTR and the Gandalf character, and so on. Bear in mind that LOTR did gain a huge audience during the Hippie era as that generation saw something utopian in the simple, Celtic purity of Middle Earth and that mystical world. And Gandalf was a hero figure to that culture, as he continues to be a popular figure in current culture. That may be dimished or altered if he is not a persistently present part of the narrative.

Reminds me of George Lucas' decision to kill off Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Now I'm just spit-balling here, but when Lucas killed off Kenobi, he invented Yoda for the subsequent movies to fill the role that Kenobi would have. So, might Tolkien do a similar thing here? Invent a magical being who aides the Fellowship on the rest of their quest?

Or, rather than inventing one, use one he has already created. Going back to Star Wars, Lucas had in Yoda a nature-dwelling, simple-minded creature who was nonetheless possessed of powerful magical abilities. Who do we know in the Lord of the Rings trilogy that can fill this role? Tom Bombadil.

Really, it's not much a stretch if you think about it. Just have Tolkien rework the bit with the Ents to have them already in conflict with Saruman or something, and have Bombadil, already established as a being with a deep connection to nature, show up to help them at around the same time that Merry and Pippin fall in with them. To justify this, though, Tolkien will have to give a concrete reason why Bombadil and the Ents and connected beyond their mutual connections to the natural world, so this will force Tolkien to develop an actual back-story for the character, thus robbing the legendarium of one of its most purposefully mysterious elements.

How this changes any future works by Tolkien, I could not possibly speculate. Bring in Thande.

Frankly Martin has something of a death fetish when it comes to main characters. I wouldn't take his advice on it, and I've not actually met anyone who thinks it's an issue.

The problem here is that Gandalf as a somewhat messianic figure- and particularly his rising to become as powerful as Saruman with the latter's fall into darkness- is pretty much one of the core concepts of the Trilogy- the intervention in Middle Earth of the Valar through less destructive means, in order to defeat Sauron. Not to mention that Gandalf can't actually die if one takes Tolkien's views on Maia, so much as be unbodied.

I don't think you can actually have something recognisable as LOTR with this change, because in order for this to make sense within all the narrative antecedents and mythological structures Tolkien was working with would require a completely different plot.

I agree: let's not take Martin's advice here. Martin writes an entirely different style of fantasy than Tolkien did, with quite different themes.

However, having Gandalf stay dead for longer - if not permanently - is quite possible. Tolkien's earliest notes on the plot (published in The Return of the Shadow in History of Middle-Earth) involve Gandalf dying in Moria but returning when the "King of On" is fighting a major battle with Sauron and about to lose. The "Land of On" eventually developed into Gondor, so this is essentially having Gandalf reappear in the middle of the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. Of course, at this time in the narrative's development, Strider was still Trotter the Hobbit, and I don't think Rohan existed.

Metaphysically, Gandalf was definitely sent by the Valar. Still, nothing says they needed to re-send him once he died. Hints in the appendices say they didn't, in fact - he only returned by direct intervention of Eru Illuvatar! Of course, his return gives room for extreme awesomeness and many thematically important moments, but leaving him disembodied beyond the Sea would (I think) emphasize the coming of the Age of Men even more: after Gandalf's departure, normal Men must carry out the plans and defeat Sauron without visible assistance. Even casting down Saruman could be done by Aragorn, I think, without the loss of too much significance. This trilogy would have a different tone to it, definitely, but its themes would be much the same as OTL's.

Or, if vultan wants the Fellowship to have a new magical mentor, might I suggest Radagast? Perhaps, upon hearing of Saruman's treason, he's filled with remorse and sets aside his simple life to return to his original mission as an Istar. This would also fit with Tolkien's themes, in the same way that he made a hobbit from the middle of nowhere be the one to bring the Ring to Mount Doom. Radagast's introduction would have to be handled carefully to avoid making it seem like Tolkien simply regretted killing off Gandalf, but I think it could be done.

Couldn't you potentially replace Gandalf with Radagast (Radagast seems to have played no part in the books after Gandalf's escape from Orthanc)?

Alex Richards said:

Frankly Martin has something of a death fetish when it comes to main characters. I wouldn't take his advice on it, and I've not actually met anyone who thinks it's an issue.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I've never heard of anyone complaining that Gandalf should have stayed dead, and despite the fact that his "death" is later undone, that does not make the Bridge at Khazad Dum any less awesomely epic.

There were other "Wizards" mentioned as well. Having one or two of them offering some assistance in honor of Gandalf is not so far out a concept.

Radagast is one of the problems I have with the new Hobbit series. He is mentioned as being rather inept compared to Gandalf, but why he's suddenly the Jar Jar of the prequels is lost on me.

Perhaps a more serious Radagast possesed by the disembodied essence of Gandalf could be an interesting character. Portrayed as something of a trickster who is morally gray and less powerful than Saruman, I could see a lot of plot choices through dialogue occurring involving whether or not the good guys can trust him.

But to answer the OP, I think an I replaced Gandalf who remains dead adds some emotional bottom and some gravity greater than OTL's version and the impact on later works could be immense.

More fantasy epics where no one is safe can't be a bad thing.

The Admiral Hook said:

Radagast is one of the problems I have with the new Hobbit series.

Click to expand...

He was called Radagast the Fool by Saruman. Saruman was arrogant and prideful. He wanted to cast down Sauron and keep the Ring for himself. Yeah, good luck with that.

Mike Stearns said:

He was called Radagast the Fool by Saruman. Saruman was arrogant and prideful. He wanted to cast down Sauron and keep the Ring for himself. Yeah, good luck with that.

Click to expand...

So you agree that Jackson's adaptation makes him unnecessarily comedic in spite of the lack of objectivity of the in universe character describing him?

I think Radagast having a larger (and even morally ambiguous) role would have been good for the book and even the genre as a whole.

Too many wizard type characters after LotR were unecessarily Gandalfian (Obi-Wan may as well have been a cousin). It would be healthy to have more diversity.

Also it could expand on the vague and unspoken concept of the various wizards as being distant protectors of their favored races; I.e. Gandalf and the Elves and Halflings, Radagast and the beasts, treefolk and beast folk, and Saruman with men.

The Blue Wizards would be very interesting to see more of as well.

The Admiral Hook said:

There were other "Wizards" mentioned as well. Having one or two of them offering some assistance in honor of Gandalf is not so far out a concept.

Click to expand...

Radagast is the only one available, Saruman's out, and the Blues are way to the east.

Perhaps a more serious Radagast possesed by the disembodied essence of Gandalf could be an interesting character. Portrayed as something of a trickster who is morally gray and less powerful than Saruman, I could see a lot of plot choices through dialogue occurring involving whether or not the good guys can trust him.

Click to expand...

Meh, I don't think Radagast's morals would be of question, but if he's weaker, he might not be as quick to confront some of the dangers.

Glorfindel, elflord from a house of princes, who already made the Nazgul run like scared little children when he unveiled the Light of the Two Trees within him, and has a history with the Witch-King, would be my pick to stand in the Grond-sundered ruin of the gate of Minas Tirith and be really really irritated when it turns out that Eowyn gets to fulfil his prophecy from a millenium ago.

The Admiral Hook said:

So you agree that Jackson's adaptation makes him unnecessarily comedic in spite of the lack of objectivity of the in universe character describing him?

Click to expand...

He doesn't seem that incompetent, he was just confronted with something that didn't make sense, then discovered that something dark was in Mirkwood. Gandalf might have handled it more calmly, but probably would have done aout the same thing.

GarethC said:

Glorfindel, elflord from a house of princes, who already made the Nazgul run like scared little children when he unveiled the Light of the Two Trees within him

Click to expand...

Actually, it is stated quite clearly that even Glorfindel and Aragorn together can not withstand the Nine together. Hardly 'running like scared children'.

Sigh. More examples of GRRM being "dark and edgy." No, LOTR is just fine as it is, Mr. Martin. You may now go back to committing democide with regards to your main characters.

The Admiral Hook said:

So you agree that Jackson's adaptation makes him unnecessarily comedic in spite of the lack of objectivity of the in universe character describing him?

Click to expand...

Not explicitly, no. I'm just saying Radagast is only ever mentioned in LOTR once, and by Saruman, who we have to take as unreliable. Even in AUJ, we aren't given any information about him other than that he is a wizard and that he is interested forestlore. We don't know anything about him other than that.

Mike Stearns said:

Not explicitly, no. I'm just saying Radagast is only ever mentioned in LOTR once, and by Saruman, who we have to take as unreliable. Even in AUJ, we aren't given any information about him other than that he is a wizard and that he is interested forestlore. We don't know anything about him other than that.

Click to expand...

He is not. Radagast appears in Flashback in book II, more specifically The Council of Elrond. He is presented as being at least as serious as Gandalf, and he was the one that originally told Gandalf, at Saruman's orders, that the Nazgul were on the move again.

The only place he was EVER mocked to my knowledge was in the film.

So yeah, we can take it as unnecessary comedic stuff.

The Admiral Hook said:

So you agree that Jackson's adaptation makes him unnecessarily comedic in spite of the lack of objectivity of the in universe character describing him?

I think Radagast having a larger (and even morally ambiguous) role would have been good for the book and even the genre as a whole.

Too many wizard type characters after LotR were unecessarily Gandalfian (Obi-Wan may as well have been a cousin). It would be healthy to have more diversity.

Click to expand...

I don't know. There is still Merlin and, for the more sci-fi oriented fictions, even Einstein (I'm looking at you, Doc), to use as models. Furthermore, if we follow Campbell's work as well as common sense, the Mentor has to get separated from the Hero for the Hero to grow. Of course, that doesn't mean it has to be because of the death of the Mentor, but it does help to prevent the Mentor from overshadowing the Hero later on.

So, in Star Wars it works without death between Yoda and Luke because Luke leaves him voluntarily and Yoda, weary of the world, is kind of retired. It works regarding Frodo in LOTR because they part ways before Gandalf's return.
(spoilers ahead, but you guys ought to know them already)
It wouldn't work in ASOIAF because Ned has to die for his kids to get into the spotlight. In Macross/Robotech, to put another example, Roy Fokker has to die so Rick Hunter can become, later on, one of the highest ranking officers of the SDF1.

By replacing Gandalf with another wizard the story is not altered by a great degree.

What I would find interesting is the (admittedly remote) possibility of Tom Bombadil replacing Gandalf as the spiritual guide.

It would give him a reason to exist rather than being something Tolkien would have cut were he more adept at story writing.

(Don't hurt me)