This paper will attempt to examine the merits of Mohammadi’s claim while account for Tolkein’s inspirations from Norse mythology and how they shape Gandalf’s dialogue and interactions with the other members of the fellowship. This will be an especially weighty undertaking considering Gandalf’s iconic role in literature and culture as a whole. Who can we trust to be a close adviser and stalwart friend if not Gandalf? With those considerations in mind, this paper will also examine how Gandalf’s friendship with the fellowship can be defined along Aristotle’s classifications of friendship in book VIII of his Nicomachean Ethics. In this discourse, Aristotle enumerates three types of friendship: those found in mutual pleasure of company, mutual practical benefit and mutual fostering of each-others’ virtues. In particular he extolls the third as the ideal incarnation of friendship, but where does that leave Gandalf? Is he the ideal friend that inspires virtue in his followers, or a manipulator that is friends only for the benefit the relationship gains?

To begin I shall examine Mohammadi’s claims. Of important note is the fact that Mohammadi is a well-published linguist writing for the Australian International Academic Center. His concern towards Gandalf hinges mostly on his dialogue and how his patterns of speech and language correspond to the academic field of “Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)”. When Mohammadi classifies Gandalf as a “manipulator” he does so under the following criteria:

For evidence of Gandalf acting within these confines, Mohammadi points to on scene in the Fellowship of the Ring, where Gandalf is attempting to convince Bilbo to relinquish the ring. At Bilbo’s protest, “Gandalf looked again very hard at Bilbo, and there was a gleam in his eyes. ‘I think, Bilbo,’ he said quietly, ‘I should leave it behind. Don't you want to?’”. As Bilbo rejoinders, Gandalf says, “No, but I had to badger you…I wanted the truth. It was important… I should like to know where it is, if you go wandering again. Also I think you have had it quite long enough. You won't need it any more, Bilbo, unless I am quite mistaken” (The Fellowship of the Ring, 45-47). From close examination of this dialogue, it becomes clearer as to why Mohammadi has reached his conclusion. Gandalf almost has a cavalier way of approaching Bilbo’s reticence, rationalizing his prying as a myopic parent would for a child’s own good.

We can see further examples of this in the ensuing discourse. “‘You will be a fool if you do. Bilbo,…You make that clearer with every word you say. It has got far too much hold on you. Let it go! And then you can go yourself, and be free’”. Bilbo rebukes him again, to this Gandalf saying, “‘Now, now, my dear hobbit!...All your long life we have been friends, and you owe me something. Come! Do as you promised: give it up!’” As Bilbo continues to deny him, Gandalf says “It will be my turn to get angry soon,…If you say that again, I shall. Then you will see Gandalf the Grey uncloaked” (The Fellowship of the Ring, 45-47). It appears Gandalf is less interested in explaining his concerns to Bilbo as demanding his immediate compliance. Even if Gandalf is holding Bilbo to his promise to Frodo, (as the third kind of Aristotle’s friend would), he is still framing the conversation in an authoritative, almost parental tone.

Mohammadi defines it as, “Gandalf, with non-verbal expressions, such as face work and angry eyes, presents his power and authority toward him, and verbally expresses his might and higher status to him, and repeats his expressions of doubts and suspicion toward the Hobbit. (Mohammadi). By Mohammadi’s definitions, Gandalf is pursuing an abusive discourse by abusing his audience’s (Bilbo’s) rights while imposing his own. For further evidence, Mohammadi cites a later passage:

Mohammadi points to this selection as evidence of “STM-based manipulation of discourse understanding. Frodo could not read and comprehend the Black speech of Mordor, but Gandalf could read, and read he did, those words. He then makes the mind of the recipient (Frodo), ready to be manipulated, manipulatively” (Mohammadi). This example makes less sense in defining Gandalf’s overall character, but reveals Mohammadi’s more literal interpretation of his scholarly craft. Even Mohammadi admits by the end of his essay that, “in Gandalf’s case, his interest was to save the Middle-earth and its inhabitants, so he had no any other choice…” but to employ the manipulative discursive strategies that we can see him implementing in these passages (Mohammadi).

So, verily, Odin can be described as one who believes “the ends justify the means”. For one to have lived in the circumstances he did, this can perhaps be understandable. As Wanner puts it, “Ódinn’s myths center around themes of marginality and transience”. How Odin deals with such transience has become the basis for a literary archetype seen in many characters throughout the history of storytelling. There are many such figures like “the Irish Suibne Geilt ('Sweeney the Mad') and the Scottish Lailoken”, or the iconic Merlin of Arthurian lore (Eson). Many of these characters are defined by possessing supernatural knowledge and power, using it to steer the fates of heroes, kings and kingdoms. Often times they were painted in an ambiguous light, much like Merlin himself who is described as “being born of a devil and a virgin maiden” (Eson). Merlin’s example rather candidly illustrates how these sage and wild-men type characters occupy a sort of middle-ground between good and evil so that they can serve the greater good. Their ways are often mysterious or repugnant to those that follow them, but they are necessary to preserving the balance in this ephemeral world.

The world of Middle-Earth is similarly caught in a state of transience where the once immortal and immaculate power of the elves has failed the world in the wake of Sauron’s meteoric rise to power. What Gandalf does in the ensuing saga could decide the fate of entire civilizations and so could be considered forgiven for taking more extreme measures. But even still, Gandalf clearly does not take such a nihilistic, brutally pragmatic view. As much evidence is given in his heroic exploits, not the least being his showdown with the Balrog in Moria: