Talk:Wizards in Middle-earth

Wizards in Middle-earth has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 5, 2020. (Reviewed version).

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Middle-earth High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.Middle-earthWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earthTemplate:WikiProject Middle-earthTolkien articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material before the current action must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wizards (Middle-earth)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 16:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gandalf

Link Bilbo Baggins

Done.

Significance

Link Lucifer to Lucifer#In Christianity

Done.

There's one theme that I personally think maybe should be mentioned somewhere with this, although you may disagree. I don't remember the source I read this in, but I remember reading a scholarly Tolkien source talking about Tolkien's Wizards failing their missions: the two Blue Wizards by wandering off and never accomplishing anything, Radagast by becoming engrossed in nature, and Saruman through the corruption of power, with only Gandalf accomplishing the intended mission. If you're aware of a scholarly source discussing this, maybe include it?

Not sure what scholar that might be. Tolkien did reflect on the matter in his essay 'Istari' in Unfinished Tales, but it's unclear as usual whether that was a definite opinion or just a passing idea, and equally whether Radagast actually failed.

Sources

WP:SCHOLARSHIP says Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence, which probably rules out Jøn, A. Asbjørn as RS

Gone.

The rest of the references all look acceptable, especially since the Ignatius source is citing a published book.

Noted.

A lot of the primary source refs in the sources section aren't actually used. Move to further reading or remove.

Done.

Image licensing is correct.

Noted.

Placing on hold, there's not much work at all needed here whatsoever. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arrival

I found myself trying to remember roughly when the Istari arrived in Middle Earth. Third Age, yes? Seems like a sentence on this would be relevant, given the purpose of their being sent (and apologies for not looking up and adding it myself) CAVincent (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add Blue Wizards to lede section?

I was thinking that it might be appropriate to mention the Blue Wizards in the lede as well as the body of the article (since the lede is meant to be a summary of the body). I know they are not well known to most Tolkien readers, but they do round out the number from 3 to 5 ... thoughts anyone? Tony 1212 (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are very minor characters, basically just a plot device to say there was some sort of context; and even Radagast has been so described. So, no, I don't see that the lead needs too be packed out with that sort of material really; nor is there anything significant to summarize about them, which should be a telling consideration. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it warrants mentioning in the lead that their number was five. (Currently the first mention of the number is "The first three of these five Wizards", which rather assumes we've already said that there are five. I think we should also say somewhere that the remaining two were the Blue Wizards, which figure only in Tolkien's notes with contradictory details, and that they traveled into the east of Middle-earth and did not figure in Tolkien's narrative. -- Elphion (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very close to WP:UNDUE as this is not a fansite. I'll add a brief mention for the sake of harmony. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I totally agree that they were "basically just a plot device" since they do not appear in any of the published (finished) works; in my mind they were part of Tolkien's larger conception for his universe and do appear in the draft for the council of the Valar at which it was decided to send the Istari to Middle-earth (p. 508-510 of "Unfinished Tales"). I think this is more than WP:UNDUE - more marginalia really; if I were writing the article (which I'm not!) I would probably add it in a footnote. However I will not labour the point and am happy that you have made the alteration as suggested. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For completeness, here is relevant text from "Unfinished Tales". Some of it could be reproduced in a footnote if desired (or not of course). However it is of potential interest especially for persons who do not have access to that text...

"Unfinished tales" Page 508-510

Most of the remaining writings about the Istari (as a group) are unhappily no more than very rapid jottings, often illegible. Of major interest, however, is a brief and very hasty sketch of a narrative, telling of a council of the Valar, summoned it seems by Manwé (‘and maybe he called upon Eru for counsel?’), at which it was resolved to send out three emissaries to Middle-earth. ‘Who would go? For they must be mighty, peers of Sauron, but must forgo might, and clothe themselves in flesh so as to treat on equality and win the trust of Elves and Men. But this would imperil them, dimming their wisdom and knowledge, and confusing them with fears, cares, and wearinesses coming from the flesh.’ But two only came forward: Curumo, who was chosen by Aulé, and Alatar, who was sent by Oromé. Then Manwé asked, where was Olorin? And Olorin, who was clad in grey, and having just entered from a journey had seated himself at the edge of the council, asked what Manwé would have of him. Manwé replied that he wished Olorin to go as the third messenger to Middle-earth (and it is remarked in parentheses that ‘Oldérin was a lover of the Eldar that remained’, apparently to explain Manwé’s choice). But Olorin declared that he was too weak for such a task, and that he feared Sauron. Then Manwé said that that was all the more reason why he should go, and that he commanded Olorin (illegible words follow that seem to contain the word ‘third’). But at that Varda looked up and said: ‘Not as the third’; and Curumo remembered it.

The note ends with the statement that Curumo [Saruman] took Aiwendil [Radagast] because Yavanna begged him, and that Alatar took Pallando as a friend.

On another page of jottings clearly belonging to the same period it is said that ‘Curumo was obliged to take Aiwendil to please Yavanna wife of Aulé’. There are here also some rough tables relating the names of the Istari to the names of the Valar: Olorin to Manwé and Varda, Curumo to Aulé, Aiwendil to Yavanna, Alatar to Oromé, and Pallando also to Oromé (but this replaces Pallando to Mandos and Nienna).

...

Whereas in the essay on the Istari it is said that the two who passed into the East had no names save Ithryn Luin ‘the Blue Wizards’ (meaning of course that they had no names in the West of Middle-earth), here they are named, as Alatar and Pallando, and are associated with Oromé, though no hint is given of the reason for this relationship. It might be (though this is the merest guess) that Oromé of all the Valar had the greatest knowledge of the further parts of Middle-earth, and that the Blue Wizards were destined to journey in those regions and to remain there.

Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ, especially as there was one who felt the need for Radagast's inclusion; Tolkien also included the two Istari in some of his last notes, as accounted in NoME; whilst revealing they also - apart from Rhun - ventured to Harad and not only had influence upon the War of the Ring but that of Sauron's invasion of Eregion, and several other things pertaining to the First Age of Endor ... Bartallen2 (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Lede: Gandalf as Christ...

Presently the lede reads: "He [Gandalf] has been described as a figure of Christ." with ref. to Kreeft, Peter J. (November 2005). "The Presence of Christ in The Lord of the Rings". Yes, well, technically correct, however this is only one view; for a contrast see Christianity in Middle-earth which states: "There is no single Christ-figure comparable to C. S. Lewis's Aslan in his Narnia books, but the characters of Gandalf, Frodo, and Aragorn exemplify the threefold office, the prophetic, priestly, and kingly aspects of Christ respectively." and seems (at least to me) to more correctly represent the current scholarly consensus. I would therefore (humbly) suggest that stating just a single view in the lede is slightly misleading; it could either be qualified as per the cited article, or simply deleted.... Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention of course that if Gandalf is an "angel" as per the other Wizards, he can scarcely also be "Christ"... Tony 1212 (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plus in Tokien's own words: "There is no ‘embodiment’ of the Creator anywhere in this story or mythology. Gandalf is a ‘created’ person; though possibly a spirit that existed before in the physical world. His function as a ‘wizard’ is an angelos or messenger from the Valar or Rulers: to assist the rational creatures of Middle-earth to resist Sauron, a power too great for them unaided [...] But though one may be in this reminded of the Gospels, it is really not the same thing at all. The Incarnation of God is an infinitely greater thing than anything I would dare to write."(Letters, p. 237) - quoted in Padley, J.; Padley, K. (2010). 'From Mirrored Truth the Likeness of the True': J. R. R. Tolkien and Reflections of Jesus Christ in Middle-Earth. English, 59(224), 70–92. doi:10.1093/english/efp032 . The same authors go on to write: "If Gandalf carries some ‘Son of God’ motifs which highlight parallels with Jesus’s divine nature, then it is Frodo who bears Jesus’s more earthly qualities, and while it is the specifics of Gandalf ’s return that have borne Christological comparison in the past, it is in the broad sweep of Frodo’s quest that scholars have identified images of Jesus." (p. 83). Tony 1212 (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not wishing to labour the point but... I believe even the suggestion in the body of the article is wrong... from Gandalf#Christ-figure: "The philosopher Peter Kreeft, like Tolkien a Roman Catholic, observes that there is no one complete, concrete, visible Christ figure in The Lord of the Rings comparable to Aslan in C. S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia series. However, Kreeft and Jean Chausse have identified reflections of the figure of Jesus Christ in three protagonists of The Lord of the Rings: Gandalf, Frodo and Aragorn." Just sayin'... Tony 1212 (talk) 06:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is discussed in Christianity in Middle-earth; no need to rehash it here, though a link would be appropriate. -- Elphion (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I bring it up here to explain why the present statement in the lede requires either modification or deletion, in my view anyway, i.e., discussion of modification to the present page :) Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If anywhere, it's better placed in the "significance" section, along with the context that you all provided/referenced above. - jc37 22:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well for now, I have simply removed "He has been described as a figure of Christ.ref name="Kreeft 2005" " from the lede, since as argued above, it is neither complete nor helpful. If someone has an alternative form of words they would prefer to see in its place, please discuss here first before amending further. Tony 1212 (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are offering an argument that the description is invalid, not an argument that the description has been made. I'm reverting your latest removal. And per WP:BRD, you'll need to form a consensus for your desired change, rather than making the change and then asking for discussion before reverting back to the status quo before your removal. CAVincent (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My contention is that the bald statement "He has been described as a figure of Christ" [readers's expectation would be an incarnation of God in human form] is misleading without additional explanation (as well as being possibly superfluous in the lede). It could perhaps be better expressed as "He has been described as one of three possible figures of Christ" which is more in line with Kreeft's text, which reads in fact: "There is no one complete, concrete, visible Christ figure in The Lord of the Rings, like Aslan in Narnia. ... He is more clearly present in Gandalf, Frodo, and Aragorn, the three Christ figures. First of all, all three undergo different forms of death and resurrection ... Second, all three are saviors: through their self-sacrifice they help save all of Middle-earth from the demonic sway of Sauron. Third, they exemplify the Old Testament threefold Messianic symbolism of prophet (Gandalf), priest (Frodo), and king (Aragorn)." But this should be set against Tolkien's own statement reproduced above, that "There is no ‘embodiment’ of the Creator anywhere in this story or mythology. Gandalf is a ‘created’ person; though possibly a spirit that existed before in the physical world. His function as a ‘wizard’ is an angelos or messenger from the Valar or Rulers: to assist the rational creatures of Middle-earth to resist Sauron, a power too great for them unaided [...] But though one may be in this reminded of the Gospels, it is really not the same thing at all. The Incarnation of God is an infinitely greater thing than anything I would dare to write."

The reason I favour deletion of the phrase in question is that (a) it is misleading without qualification, and (b) it has been explicitly contradicted by Tolkien, so why include it in the lede as a salient fact, without qualification or context?

I have to say that I am tiring of this discussion already, and would be happy for others to make whatever changes they wish. I have put my views above. Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]