# Hobbits not to sad after Gandolf's death???



## Welserwies (Jun 14, 2011)

Did I miss something. The chapter after Gandolf dies every one is out side and hardly a word is said about him. Gimli even takes frodo site seeing for a moment. I was expecting the chapter to open with a few more lamentations.


----------



## Starbrow (Jun 14, 2011)

I also noticed this. I know they are escaping with their lives, but I guess I expected a more expressions of grief once they got away from Moria.


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Jun 15, 2011)

This is an excerpt from the chapter, "The Bridge of Khazad-dum". 

"Along this they fled. Frodo heard Sam at his side weeping, and then he found that he himself was weeping as he ran."

Then later on at the end of the chapter.....

"Nothing else was to be seen; the dale all around was empty. _Doom_. Grief at last wholly overcame them, and they wept long: some standing and silent, some cast upon the ground. _Doom, doom._ The drum-beats faded.

So you see, they were instantly grieved and it says they wept long. Then at the start of the chapter Lothlorien Aragorn bids farewell to Gandalf.


----------



## Welserwies (Jun 16, 2011)

Bard the Bowman said:


> This is an excerpt from the chapter, "The Bridge of Khazad-dum".
> 
> "Along this they fled. Frodo heard Sam at his side weeping, and then he found that he himself was weeping as he ran."
> 
> ...





I remember reading that but my interest was the last quote you gave where aragon bids farewell and even recounts the warning he gave Gandolf. The passages in the previous chapter about their grief as they were fleeing were fleeting at best and I assumed more would be said when they could stop for a moment but

all the was "farewell gandolf. Hey lets look at this rock." Thats the way I saw it anyway.


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Jun 16, 2011)

Right, but it says they wept long. That could be for hours. Too me that speaks enough about how compromised their emotions were after Gandalf's death. And maybe Aragorn is just a prick. Even in the midst of all the sorrow he can't help having this one last word........that he was right.


----------



## Welserwies (Jun 16, 2011)

Bard the Bowman said:


> Right, but it says they wept long. That could be for hours. Too me that speaks enough about how compromised their emotions were after Gandalf's death. And maybe Aragorn is just a prick. Even in the midst of all the sorrow he can't help having this one last word........that he was right.



Your right about that line but to me as descriptive as Tolkien was about almost everything else in the book yet he didn't seem to do much with a main characters death. I am going to start trying to notice if tolkien used much emotion in the story. Maybe he didn't know how to do it. 

And I would say Gimliy was a prick also. "Hey I know your best friend just died but why don't you come look at this big rock with me..."


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Jun 16, 2011)

Just a wild thought, but maybe Tolkien was foreshadowing that Gandalf wasn't dead. Just off the top of my head. However, i think the issue that there wasn't much grieving for him is resolved because in actual fact there was much weeping.


----------



## Welserwies (Jun 17, 2011)

Bard the Bowman said:


> Just a wild thought, but maybe Tolkien was foreshadowing that Gandalf wasn't dead. Just off the top of my head. However, i think the issue that there wasn't much grieving for him is resolved because in actual fact there was much weeping.



I was wondering about the foreshadowing of gandolfs reappearance and thought that likely but the characters couldn't have suspected that. 

As far as there feelings I was thinking more on the lines of how tolkien wrote it. Like you say there was much weeping but to me it seemed like it was written, as if these words may have been in the story, "oh. and there was much weeping now forget it and move on with the story"


----------



## Prince of Cats (Jun 20, 2011)

> I am going to start trying to notice if tolkien used much emotion in the story. Maybe he didn't know how to do it.





Welserwies said:


> As far as there feelings I was thinking more on the lines of how tolkien wrote it. Like you say there was much weeping but to me it seemed like it was written, as if these words may have been in the story, "oh. and there was much weeping now forget it and move on with the story"



Okay, first: this is the second topic on the forum that you've started where you suggest or say that Tolkien is lacking as a writer because he doesn't follow your ideas of story telling. It seems to me that you're unfamiliar with the area of myth-literature and writing for other than consumptive use. These are no simple bathtub novels!

In regards to the grieving: Remember that Tolkien was a Veteran from WWI trench warfare. He likely saw friends, "Main Characters," die beside him in gruesome ways and had to keep on fighting. The Fellowship's continued persistence toward their vital and most likely fatal quest is showing of their heroism.


----------



## Uminya (Jun 20, 2011)

It really would not have added anything at all to the story if Tolkien had written fifteen additional pages about the shape of the tears running down the Walkers' faces, or the sting of their reddened eyes.

Tolkien wrote phenomenally-detailed descriptions of places and things that readers have never seen or experienced. I think he would assume that readers have experienced enough grief and heartache that he would not have to write that sort of thing in detail.


----------



## Welserwies (Jun 21, 2011)

Ciryaher said:


> It really would not have added anything at all to the story if Tolkien had written fifteen additional pages about the shape of the tears running down the Walkers' faces, or the sting of their reddened eyes.
> 
> Tolkien wrote phenomenally-detailed descriptions of places and things that readers have never seen or experienced. I think he would assume that readers have experienced enough grief and heartache that he would not have to write that sort of thing in detail.




you could say that about many authors and stories but they still take the bother to include some detailed emotions in their characters. So far, after reading the fellow ship and half of the next, I don't think Tolkiens strong point was feelings or emotion. Not that I really care about it to much. I don't even think I would have noticed if it wasn't for gandolf's death and the fellowships lack luster sadness.


'Gandolf's dead. much sorrow, look at a rock and move on already'.


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Jun 30, 2011)

You guys are all acting ignorant. This is so annoying. Tolkien very clearly states the Fellowship wept, even as they were running, and then when coming into the open wept long, very long. Aragorn's ranger instinct kicked in when he realized if they wept anymore they would be killed. They were very sad. Very sad. Don't you realize that? 

THEY WERE SAD!!!! Just because Tolkien didn't describe every little detail about every single teardrop doesn't mean they didn't feel sorrow for him. He says they wept long. How many times do i have to repeat this for you to realize? They were sad. 

This puts an end to this discussion as the question is resolved. Someone was confused as to why the hobbits/Fellowship were not too sad when Gandalf (it's spelt with an "a") died, and I pointed out the passage where it clearly shows they were stricken with grief. End of topic.


----------



## Mimzy (Jun 30, 2011)

"Nothing else was to be seen; the dale all around was empty. _Doom_. Grief at last wholly overcame them, and they wept long: some standing and silent, some cast upon the ground. _Doom, doom._ The drum-beats faded.

this kind of implies there was not a dry eye in the group does it not"?


----------



## Welserwies (Jun 30, 2011)

Mimzy said:


> "Nothing else was to be seen; the dale all around was empty. _Doom_. Grief at last wholly overcame them, and they wept long: some standing and silent, some cast upon the ground. _Doom, doom._ The drum-beats faded.
> 
> this kind of implies there was not a dry eye in the group does it not"?



Rather short isn't it? And Like I was pointing out it wasn't brought up in the immediate future very well either. For instance, as I keep referring to gimli's sacred stone ( I believe a former dwarf king was killed by it) 


The passage could have read more like (And I make it in short)

"frodo. Come look at this rock with me" says gimli
Frodo's jaw slackens and drops in shock at the suggestion. Half with rage and half with sorrow Frodo starts to speak but only a grunt comes out as his heart prevents him from forming words. Regaining his composure he exclaims "One of My best friend's and closest advisors has just died and you wish me to see a rock! are you made of stone. Have you no feelings.... yada yada yada." 

or something to that effect. 

Like I said. The sorrow was mentioned in passing and then foregoton.


----------



## Uminya (Jun 30, 2011)

Tolkien's style of writing does not tend to dwell on personal emotions in the Lord of the Rings. I really don't see that writing more about something like that would have improved it at all.


----------



## Prince of Cats (Jun 30, 2011)

Welserwies said:


> The passage could have read more like (And I make it in short)
> 
> "frodo. Come look at this rock with me" says gimli
> Frodo's jaw slackens and drops in shock at the suggestion. Half with rage and half with sorrow Frodo starts to speak but only a grunt comes out as his heart prevents him from forming words. Regaining his composure he exclaims "One of My best friend's and closest advisors has just died and you wish me to see a rock! are you made of stone. Have you no feelings.... yada yada yada."



But that isn't very becoming of Frodo (nor would I respect that character very much). Like I've said before: these aren't bathtub novels :*D I don't think Tolkien was writing for an audience that demanded forced drama. Getting upset and hostile isn't a necessary way of grieving and not one I tolerate either.



Bard said:


> You guys are all acting ignorant. This is so annoying. Tolkien very clearly states the Fellowship wept, even as they were running, and then when coming into the open wept long, very long. Aragorn's ranger instinct kicked in when he realized if they wept anymore they would be killed. They were very sad. Very sad. Don't you realize that?
> 
> THEY WERE SAD!!!! Just because Tolkien didn't describe every little detail about every single teardrop doesn't mean they didn't feel sorrow for him. He says they wept long. How many times do i have to repeat this for you to realize? They were sad.
> 
> This puts an end to this discussion as the question is resolved.



While I agree with you, Bard, that's not how the forum works. Welserwies is entitled to share his or her point of view. Now, I might get riled a bit but I appreciate how Welser' has been keeping the forum active :*up


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Jun 30, 2011)

I think, Prince of Cats, you misunderstand me. Did I say, "don't post anymore"? No, I was referring to the misconception that lingers even though I shatter it with more than enough evidence. Of course they are welcome to share their opinions. They shouldn't be wondering why the hobbits weren't sad; it seems like they need to be discussing why Tolkien didn't describe the grieving; which they have also done.


----------



## Welserwies (Jul 1, 2011)

Ciryaher said:


> Tolkien's style of writing does not tend to dwell on personal emotions in the Lord of the Rings. I really don't see that writing more about something like that would have improved it at all.



I was just thinking it would have kept it in memory more. 15 to 20 lines about a description of a small part of forest and 1 and a 1/2 lines about how people felt about the depth of a hero. It seemed un balanced to me. I stated before how I thought individual emotions seemed problematic to him. Some one mentioned his part in WWI and that may have something to do with it maybe.


----------



## Welserwies (Jul 1, 2011)

Prince of Cats said:


> Okay, first: this is the second topic on the forum that you've started where you suggest or say that Tolkien is lacking as a writer because he doesn't follow your ideas of story telling. It seems to me that you're unfamiliar with the area of myth-literature and writing for other than consumptive use. These are no simple bathtub novels!
> 
> In regards to the grieving: Remember that Tolkien was a Veteran from WWI trench warfare. He likely saw friends, "Main Characters," die beside him in gruesome ways and had to keep on fighting. The Fellowship's continued persistence toward their vital and most likely fatal quest is showing of their heroism.




Get a grip on your self. 

1st 
Just because a novel bothers to deal with emotions doesn't make it a "bath tub novel". It just makes it more real.
2nd
Having characters with a full range of emotions, ones that can be described as well as one describes a building or a tree, is not my idea of story telling. it is just what story telling is. And noticing that Tolkien glanced over what should have been a powerful emotional scene isn't saying he is lacking as an author. 
3rd
I thought this was a forum where people discussed tolkien. I am not attacking the guy or his writing. I am commenting on it. Stop being so childish. If you want to see what an actual attack looks like then read your post. 


Its a discussion. If you don't like it then why are you taking part in it? Because you don't like it you are trying to get every one to take there toys and go home. Poor me. no one to play with because of the school yard bully.


----------



## Welserwies (Jul 1, 2011)

Bard the Bowman said:


> You guys are all acting ignorant. This is so annoying. Tolkien very clearly states the Fellowship wept, even as they were running, and then when coming into the open wept long, very long. Aragorn's ranger instinct kicked in when he realized if they wept anymore they would be killed. They were very sad. Very sad. Don't you realize that?
> 
> THEY WERE SAD!!!! Just because Tolkien didn't describe every little detail about every single teardrop doesn't mean they didn't feel sorrow for him. He says they wept long. How many times do i have to repeat this for you to realize? They were sad.
> 
> This puts an end to this discussion as the question is resolved. Someone was confused as to why the hobbits/Fellowship were not too sad when Gandalf (it's spelt with an "a") died, and I pointed out the passage where it clearly shows they were stricken with grief. End of topic.


 


Bard the Bowman said:


> I think, Prince of Cats, you misunderstand me. Did I say, "don't post anymore"? No, I was referring to the misconception that lingers even though I shatter it with more than enough evidence. Of course they are welcome to share their opinions. They shouldn't be wondering why the hobbits weren't sad; it seems like they need to be discussing why Tolkien didn't describe the grieving; which they have also done.




By the way you may have not said don't post any more (I forgot to use your other quote in my post so I made another) but telling everyone they are ignorant and annoying is pretty much the same thing. Its kinda like saying "I don't care what you do but if you do THAT I am gonna get you". 

And then saying "this puts an end to the discussion" So what is every one supposed to think. Post any more on the topic and Bard will **** in your coffee. I don't even think you know what i was trying to discuss. 

So Tolkien writes "They were sad. very very very sad" the end. Oh I see. they were sad. great discussion.


----------



## Sulimo (Jul 2, 2011)

For some reason this topic has raised everyone's hackles. I am entering in medias res, and so I will feel free to give my 2 cents if that is okay with everyone. I personally find that Welserwives has made an interesting observation about Tolkien's work. However, I also find that Prince of Cats statement about him serving in the trenches definitely would make one understand Tolkien's personal experience. It shows how, in dire situations, one must put their full outpouring of grief on hold. Until they reach a point where they can better release these emotions. Also they could be in a state of shock. Their leader fell. The most powerful force of good in the entire trilogy died against the first serious foe they encountered. That is a pretty shocking moment, and completely unexpected by both the readers, and I am sure even more so for the fellowship. 

In the fellowship's case the opportunity to express their grief, presented itself in the form of Lothlorien. I think that it is very important to remember the role that Lorien provided in the West. Because it is essentially the model Galadrial used when growing the forest. Lorien was a place of rest and tranquility. A place where weary hearts could cast their burdens aside. 

When they entered the forest they were cleansed and washed clean of weariness; just by walking in the waters of the Nimrodel. While the fellowship recuperated in Lorien they had time (more then they realized) to cope with their grief, and prepare themselves for the next phase. There actually is a fair amount of that chapter dedicated to not only the fellowship's grief, but the grief of all the denizens of Lothlorien. In particular this passage illustrates my point. 



> Mithrandir, Mithrandir sang the Elves, O Pilgrim Grey! For so they loved to call him. But if Legolas was with the Company, he would not interpret the songs for them, saying that he had not skill, and that for him the grief was still too near, a matter for tears and not yet for song.
> It was Frodo who first put some of his sorrow into halting words.



I think that Bard's quotes about their weeping conveys an immediate deep emotional response, but I also think that the scenes in Lothlorien provide a period of both grief and healing. They are able to rest and mentally prepare for the next phase of their journey. All except Boromir benefit greatly from this respite. When they go forward again on the quest they are certainly glummer then when they began, but one who wouldn't be. This is of particular significance to the Hobbits. Which leads into my final point.

One more significant note that I feel must be made on this topic, is that their reactions conveys the fundamental character of the Hobbits. It shows how remarkably resilient they are. They are not heartless, so much as courageous. The fellowship understood Gandalf's final words "Fly you fools!" He didn't sacrifice himself so they could grieve for him. He sacrificed himself to allow the fulfillment of the mission. For them to be overcome by grief it would have negated the purpose of the sacrifice.


----------



## Welserwies (Jul 2, 2011)

Those are very good points Sulimo. I do not remember reading that passage from when the fellowship was in Lothlorien. It may be because the elves used the name mithrandir in place of Gandolf and I was not used to it. 

The resilience of the hobbits is also an excellent point I had not thought of but for me I think it would have made more sense to see how there grief effected them in the immediate; other than that they were all very sad. I understand they had no time to sit around and grieve as they had to flee the area before sun down. Its just that something seemed out of place to me. The way I read it (forgive me for repeating myself) is that they were all sad but the only thing said is by Aragorn who basically says "I told you so Gandolf" and then Frodo goes with Gimli to look at a rock. 

The whole thing had an 'Oh well" attitude about it. I guess, for me, it left me with out closure on the subject. Some one else mentioned possibly the foreshadowing of Gandolf's return which does make a little sense and If I looked at it in that context only then it would be alright but the characters can not see the foreshadowing of the story line.
I am glad to see that Frodo "put some of his sorrow into halting words" when he had more time to rest. wish I had caught that before. 

I fear this , for me at least, is a conundrum that will bother me as long as I remember the story. when I am finished I intend on re reading that part and also re reading Boromir's death. I remember Boromir had a ceremony of sorts but I want to compare the two deaths and how they were handled by Tolkien's words.


thanks for the discourse. you have shed a little light


----------



## Sulimo (Jul 2, 2011)

It interests me what bothers some people, but not others. Quite honestly this is a moment that until yesterday I had not thought much about. If you are wanting to do a full investigation of grief in the LOTR I think you should also reread the Lothlorien chapter, The Mirror of Galadrial. I also think you should look into Denathor. Both how he deals with Boromir and Faramir. As well as the various characters reactions to the fall of Theoden. These are some clear moments that are of a similar nature. I am curious about how you feel that all these scenes handle the feeling of grief. 

There are other more complex forms of grief present as well, but I will not go into those. I also am curious if you have read The Silmarillion. I have not followed your post close enough to tell. If not you should. That has one of the best scenes of at the moment grief, dealing with Turin. I will not say more in case you haven't read it.


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Jul 2, 2011)

> Did I miss something. The chapter after Gandolf dies every one is out side and hardly a word is said about him. Gimli even takes frodo site seeing for a moment. I was expecting the chapter to open with a few more lamentations.



This is your original statement. Correct me if I'm wrong Welserwies, but to me it seems like you weren't aware that they grieved immediately for Gandalf. And the answer to your first sentence is yes, you did miss something.


----------



## Welserwies (Jul 2, 2011)

Bard the Bowman said:


> This is your original statement. Correct me if I'm wrong Welserwies, but to me it seems like you weren't aware that they grieved immediately for Gandalf. And the answer to your first sentence is yes, you did miss something.



MY OP: 
Did I miss something. The chapter after Gandolf dies every one is out side and hardly a word is said about him. Gimli even takes frodo site seeing for a moment. I was expecting the chapter to open with a few more lamentations.





THE CHAPTER AFTER GANDOLF DIES!!!! AFTER HE DIES. MEANING not the end of the chapter he died in. yes there was weeping in the end of the chapter Gandolf died in. IF you read to fast you would have missed it. In my text it doesn't even say 'much weeping'. It says frodo heard Sam weeping and then her realized himself that he was weeping also. Merry and pip didn't even care I guess. I get it. 2 hobbits wept. 

the next chapter Aragorn says "I told you so" and Gimli takes frodo to look at a stone and some water. That is the chapter I am talking about. You know. the one after Gandolf dies. the very next one. For as I asked ....


MY OP AGAIN JUST IN CASE

"Did I miss something. The chapter after Gandolf dies every one is out side and hardly a word is said about him. Gimli even takes frodo site seeing for a moment. I was expecting the chapter to open with a few more lamentations."

If I new how to underline after then I would. Yes some one has pointed out a passage from Lothlorien that I did not see many pages into the chapter after Gandolf dies.


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Jul 2, 2011)

Very well. The chapter starts with them finishing up their long and hard weeping. Aragorn tells them to weep no more. They ALL, including Merry and Pippin, wept at the end of the previous chapter, and they were still weeping when Aragorn was speaking at the start of the next one. What did you expect? An entire chapter devoted to Gandalf's lament?


----------



## Sulimo (Jul 6, 2011)

I just stumbled across something rather interesting, and I thought that I would point it out. I was reading an essay by Hugh T. Keenan called The Appeal of the Lord of the Rings: A Struggle for Life, and I found something rather interesting. It pertains to Welserwies' statement:



> then Frodo goes with Gimli to look at a rock.



It is not a rock that Gimli leads Frodo to, but a deep dark lake, that reflected the encircling mountains and sky in radiant colors. I do agree upon further reflection that it does appear to be an odd aside to include at first glance. However, one must take into account the deliberateness of Tolkien's writing style. Nothing in these books is randomly placed. In fact every word was most likely weighed and measured before put to the final print. Therefore, he most likely had a very good reason for devoting a full page of his story to include a side trip to this lake. 

I believe that Keenan has the answer. Most everything in the books obviously serves as a paired contrast in Tolkiens work. From Sauraman to Gandalf to Minas Anor to Minas Ithil. Many of these contrasts especially when they deal with physical locations show something in pure (Minas Anor) and what something pure can become if evil triumphs (Minas Ithil). This is also present as they are on the hill approaching Lothlorien and they see both Caras Galadhon and Dol Guldor. Too say the least this is a repeated pattern that occurs throughout the LOTR. 

The situation with the Lake Mirrormere is yet another example of this. On either side of the mines of Moria there are two lakes. The first lake by the entrance is stagnant, and corrupted. It is inhabited by the Watcher at the Gates a kraken-like beast of questionable nature. It does have some remaining holly trees and the words of Celebrimbor, "speak friend and enter", but those are the last vestiges of a happier time. 

On the other side of the mines there is yet anther lake, Mirrormere. This lake is uncorrupted and still pure. Keenan proposes that these lakes together are a more subtle use of this repeated theme. I believe that this shows symbolically why Gandalf sacrificed himself. To preserve this sacred site, and the rest of the world from the desolation that would exist if Sauron triumphed. 

That is also why I believe it occurred so soon after the sacrifice. It further brings home the significance of the sacrifice. I personally believe that in Tolkien's work the symbol and the theme often take precedence over the character. I am not implying that the characters are flat, but though their evolution and growth is integral to the story, the symbolism and romantic themes present in an epic struggle of good vs evil may be more significant.


----------



## Sulimo (Jul 6, 2011)

Bard, I have been thinking about this statement, and I was curious about what lead you to this conclusion. I know you framed it in "just a wild thought", but it got me thinking, and I wanted to hear your logic for drawing this conclusion. I will refrain from extrapolating on this topic until I see your response. Thanks!



> Just a wild thought, but maybe Tolkien was foreshadowing that Gandalf wasn't dead.


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Jul 7, 2011)

Well, like I said it was a wild thought. I see now that the logic isn't completely sound, since you brought the excerpt in Lorien to attention. That was off the top of my head, as I remembered that there were long words and also songs sung for Boromir when he died, and yet it seemed like although Tolkien stated there was weeping and grief, he didn't give Gandalf a proper farewell. That all becomes moot now because they do lament for him in Lorien, Frodo and Sam both sing for him, and talk about him.


----------



## Sulimo (Jul 7, 2011)

Understood, I was just curious.


----------



## Parsifal (Jul 8, 2011)

Welserwies said:


> Rather short isn't it? And Like I was pointing out it wasn't brought up in the immediate future very well either. For instance, as I keep referring to gimli's sacred stone ( I believe a former dwarf king was killed by it)
> 
> 
> The passage could have read more like (And I make it in short)
> ...



Never felt the need to seek some comfort or put you mind off your grief? Atleast for Gimli this seems to be the case. Also, for Gimli this is ofcours something he has looked forward to for years, and one of the chief side-goals of his journey.
Frodo, I think, was just undergoing these things. He was in a state of disbelief and going to see the Sstone or not doesn't matter anymore, so he just follows Gimli. He doesn't seem to touched by the appearence of the Stone either, he just sees it, while his mind is still dwelling in Moria.


----------

