Jump to content

Melisandre and Gandalf


SeanF

Recommended Posts

Mmmmm there is no way that I could substitute Gandalf in my mind for Mel, in really any way. Gandalf was always a protagonist, always helpful to the people he was around, and always OPEN with what his intentions were. WHen Melisandre came into the series, many people regarded her (and many still do) as a villain. She was a sorcerous who used strange magic to kill "innocent" people while duping a man into the belief that he was some sort of cosmic super hero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are hints in Mel's chapter that she used to be a slave (lots of Red Priests apparently start out that way). Gandalf in contrast is basically a demi-god. Mel knows true powerlessness while all restrictions on Gandalf's power are voluntary. Based on that alone, they are not very compareable.

As a fictional character, Mel is a lot more interesting to me. She's actually not that magically gifted, so she has to rely a lot more on her wits to make things happen. Gandalf, in contrast, to me always had the whiff of a plot device. The limitations of his powers is rather arbitrary and ill-defined. He's exactly as powerful and clever as the plot needs him to be (I hate do keep flogging a dead horse, but he couldn't think of a good use for those giant eagles earlier in the proceedings, really?) . Frankly, I find it hard to distinguish Gandalf's helpful interventions from Deus Ex Machina. And he fills very much the need for the benevolent, powerful father figure taking care of things, even if it involves quite a bit of self-sacrifce, just like Aslan in Narnia and Jesus. That kind of narrative is always going to be attractive to certain people and not so much to others, but I think that kind of figure would be pretty out of place in Martin's world of ice and fire.

I don't really see Mel as Merlin either, mainly because Varys is the better fit for that role, although he claims to despise magic. But his Aegon plan is just such a Merlin-type of thing to do. Mel is not half as manipulative either.

In fact, Mel is actually pretty straightforward. Sure she wants Stannis to burn people for Rhollor, but apart from that, she doesn't try to interfere much in the way he wants to run things. She also sufficiently explicit about that burning-people-for-Rhollor thing. It's not exactly a secret agenda. While she seemed like a bit of a Rasputin-figure in her first appearances, we learned in her POV chapter that she's quite the true believer. What she actually wants is to help Stannis as AA defeath the Great Others and that's exactly what she claims she wants. She's pulling some tricks with regard to the extent of her powers, but as far as her motivations are concerned, she's playing with open cards.

The one great thing about Mel is her respect for Davos. That guy has often opposed her and foiled her plans. And yet she acknowledges his value for Stannis (how's that for humility? even if Davos' advice often contradicts hers, she won't deny his merits! my chief evidence that it's not about personal ambition for Mel) and instead of trying to get rid of him, her biggest enemy in the court, she even tries to keep his son safe. That's an act of compassion in the face of antagonism which makes Gandalf's concerns for Sauron's minions sound a lot more like lip-service. He might pity them all he wants, but what does he actually do for them?

Talking about LOTR parallels, I'm fairly convinced that Cersei is Gollum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are hints in Mel's chapter that she used to be a slave (lots of Red Priests apparently start out that way). Gandalf in contrast is basically a demi-god. Mel knows true powerlessness while all restrictions on Gandalf's power are voluntary. Based on that alone, they are not very compareable.

As a fictional character, Mel is a lot more interesting to me. She's actually not that magically gifted, so she has to rely a lot more on her wits to make things happen. Gandalf, in contrast, to me always had the whiff of a plot device. The limitations of his powers is rather arbitrary and ill-defined. He's exactly as powerful and clever as the plot needs him to be (I hate do keep flogging a dead horse, but he couldn't think of a good use for those giant eagles earlier in the proceedings, really?) . Frankly, I find it hard to distinguish Gandalf's helpful interventions from Deus Ex Machina. And he fills very much the need for the benevolent, powerful father figure taking care of things, even if it involves quite a bit of self-sacrifce, just like Aslan in Narnia and Jesus. That kind of narrative is always going to be attractive to certain people and not so much to others, but I think that kind of figure would be pretty out of place in Martin's world of ice and fire.

I don't really see Mel as Merlin either, mainly because Varys is the better fit for that role, although he claims to despise magic. But his Aegon plan is just such a Merlin-type of thing to do. Mel is not half as manipulative either.

In fact, Mel is actually pretty straightforward. Sure she wants Stannis to burn people for Rhollor, but apart from that, she doesn't try to interfere much in the way he wants to run things. She also sufficiently explicit about that burning-people-for-Rhollor thing. It's not exactly a secret agenda. While she seemed like a bit of a Rasputin-figure in her first appearances, we learned in her POV chapter that she's quite the true believer. What she actually wants is to help Stannis as AA defeath the Great Others and that's exactly what she claims she wants. She's pulling some tricks with regard to the extent of her powers, but as far as her motivations are concerned, she's playing with open cards.

The one great thing about Mel is her respect for Davos. That guy has often opposed her and foiled her plans. And yet she acknowledges his value for Stannis (how's that for humility? even if Davos' advice often contradicts hers, she won't deny his merits! my chief evidence that it's not about personal ambition for Mel) and instead of trying to get rid of him, her biggest enemy in the court, she even tries to keep his son safe. That's an act of compassion in the face of antagonism which makes Gandalf's concerns for Sauron's minions sound a lot more like lip-service. He might pity them all he wants, but what does he actually do for them?

Talking about LOTR parallels, I'm fairly convinced that Cersei is Gollum.

Nice Mel analysis. I agree on most points.

Dunno about Cersei/Gollum, though.

Val or Brienne as Eowyn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Cersei=Gollum theory (already posted in countless other threads, so sorry, if I'm boring anyone who's already seen it):

Gollum starts out as an apparently harmless, fairly relatable character, who is however easily corrupted by power the moment it comes within his reach. He's a hobbit, not exactly the most intimidating creature around, yet he ends up causing a lot of damage. The moment he obtains power he starts to develop a deep loathing for other hobbits.

Cersei's status as a woman in this society might make her seem comparatively harmless too at first sight, She is easily corrupted by power and has a lot of contempt for other woman.

Gollum antagonizes Frodo, but when Frodo discovers his treason, he shows mercy and spares his life. At first sight this seems to come back to bite Frodo, In the long run however his mercy for Gollum is what saves the day, as Gollum accidentially completes the task Frodo couldn't by destroying something in need of destruction.

Cersei antagonizes the Stark/Baratheon alliance. When Ned discovers her treason, he shows mercy and loses his head for his troubles. But I think that Ned's mercy for Cersei will have unexpected positive results down the road, just as Frodo's mercy for Gollum. She's certainly good enough at destroying stuff, and maybe she'll eventually destroy something worthy of destruction in the end. The Iron Throne for instance. (The Iron Thron = the Ring).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a secret sample chapter from TWoW in which Mel shows up in Slaver's bay and talks Tyrion into getting a ring from his uncle Gerion, who it turns out is actually a dwarf too. Then Tyrion, Penny, and two other halflings halfmen are convinced by Mel to embark on a difficult journey to Valyria to destroy the ring at the site of the Doom. Epic adventure unfolds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a secret sample chapter from TWoW in which Mel shows up in Slaver's bay and talks Tyrion into getting a ring from his uncle Gerion, who it turns out is actually a dwarf too. Then Tyrion, Penny, and two other halflings halfmen are convinced by Mel to embark on a difficult journey to Valyria to destroy the ring at the site of the Doom. Epic adventure unfolds.

:bowdown: ... and the thread is won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest difference between Melisandre and Gandalf, to me, is that we can be sure Gandalf is working for a good cause, and he and we know what that is. In LotR there are Good and Evil. The two opposing forces, which are seen as a division between people and within individuals, and we know who and what belongs to which. In ASoIaF there are factions, each with different somewhat blurry agendas, and we don't exactly know which agenda will coincide with the good of humanity in the long run. In ASoIaF there are also contradicting emotions and agendas within individuals, and what seems to be the honorable/best choice of action does not always coincide with the best outcome (or even a predictable one) in the longer time span. Take Frodo's reluctance to killing Gollum times a gazillion, and add a random outcome.

Mel wants AAR to rise and fight for R'hllors cause, and she thinks that is best for humanity. But now, maybe she even wants her hero to rise more than she wants to save humanity? Maybe her focus was once on saving humanity but now shifted towards fulfilling her agenda, and she lost sight of the end goal. More like Saruman than Gandalf, if so. What if her agendas have contradicted or will contradict, what will she do? Is she a fanatic or an altruist? I think the evidence are contradictory on this.

We don't really know that Mels agenda is the best for the realm, even if she thinks so, or if she is a player in a bigger game, a game spanning thousands of years, as opposed to the game of the Iron throne. We don't know if AAR defeating the Others is the solution to the situation. It may seem like it, but does eternal summer really capture the end goal that is best for humans? Mel says it herself at one point, shadows can only exist where there is light. The one cannot exist without the other.

Her efforts have not helped uniting the realm, she has functioned more as a divider of people. Her religion alienates others and oppresses them. Not sure that causing more divisions between the people in Westeros will be helpful. Maybe she will prove to be right, maybe the religions of the Old gods, the Seven and the Drowned god need to be destroyed, but maybe she is wrong. Maybe her burning the weirwoods was not helpful at all. Further, she blatantly ignores the knowledge of the people from beyond the Wall, she burns their gods and forces them to turn to R'hllor against their will. The people beyond the Wall, who have lived with the threat of the Others for thousands of years, and have a deeper knowledge of this than any other, or so I assume from what we've been told. She has traveled from the other side of the world and starts by dominating the people she aims to lead, or have her AAR lead in the name of R'hllor. This strikes me as very risky and ignorant behaviour, which has a spill over effect on her other actions and opinions, in my view.

Another point is that Gandalf died and came back wiser and more powerful. Melisandre has gone through "a change" that probably is some magical change of her body and/or mind, and maybe that is the key to her magical potens. The problem is that people tend to think that miracles are divine interference, and ascribe divine/saintly traits to the ones that have witnessed/been subject to miracles, in RL and in ASoIaF. But we know that the miracles (I think of them as magical interference in the story) in ASoIaF don't always lead to saintly traits, exhibit A: I give you UnCat.

So, Mel is more of an agent with an unknown agenda than Gandalf, or even a piece in a bigger game, which is completely in line with ASoIaF in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gandalf cracked a bridge, I can't think of another instance of outward magical display in the books. Even in the Silmarillion there are not a lot of overt displays of magic other than by the Valar themselves.

Mel burns an eagle flying around in the sky, I can't even think of how that happened

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...