|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
May 29 2023, 9:49am
Post #1 of 63
(2417 views)
Shortcut
|
|
****Character of Saruman (1): Treachery in Isengard
|
Can't Post
|
|
Hello Everyone!
This is the first week of a discussion of Saruman’s character. We’ll mostly work through the LOTR book in order and (if someone volunteers to lead it!) end with a week on Saruman as described by Tolkien elsewhere, thus sweeping up anything we’ve missed from LOTR, or things from other texts that were not specifically relevant to any of the earlier discussions. The programme is here, if you want to see what is ahead (or volunteer to lead that last week, which-- at the time of writing at least -- needs a leader if it is to happen.)
In this first week the main study is the account of his betrayal and imprisonment that Gandalf gives to the Council of Elrond.
I like this bit very much and I have suggested very many possible things to discuss about it. And the nature of my week this week means it is best for me to post them all at once (and a little earlier than advertised), rather than a series of posts as I have sometimes done. So here are "all of them at once"!
Perhaps there are far too many points to discuss them all this week, but that isn’t important (in my view). Rather, I hope people will pick any points they find interesting (or make their own additional ones).
Just pick one to get you started! That way it isn’t just too overwhelming to reply in any way at all.
And of course it is fine if the conversation breaks up into many subthreads (tip: use the “View Threaded” button to see a view that groups everything by who is replying to who, rather than in order of posting).
Well, that’s enough preamble, lets get started!
First, what do we know about Saruman as we start the Council of Elrond Chapter?
“Saruman” is first mentioned by name in Shadow of the Past:
[Gandalf speaking] “I might perhaps have consulted Saruman the White, but something always held me back.’
‘Who is he?’ asked Frodo. ‘I have never heard of him before.’
‘Maybe not,’ answered Gandalf. ‘Hobbits are, or were, no concern of his. Yet he is great among the Wise. He is the chief of my order and the head of the Council. His knowledge is deep, but his pride has grown with it, and he takes ill any meddling. The lore of the Elven-rings, great and small, is his province. He has long studied it, seeking the lost secrets of their making; but when the Rings were debated in the Council, all that he would reveal to us of his ring-lore told against my fears. So my doubt slept–but uneasily. Still I watched and I waited.”
There are two further references to Saruman.
- Trust in Saruman’s lore is one reason Gandalf gives up his first hunt for Gollum.
- But Bilbo’s behaviour when he is asked to give up the Ring alarms Gandalf in a way that “filled me with a fear that no words of Saruman could allay”.
Someone reading this chapter and who had a good memory of The Hobbit might relate this Saruman of the White Council to the wizards who are mentioned in The Hobbit and who evict The Necromancer from Mirkwood.
I must confess that I don’t remember making that connection on my first LOTR reading. And I had probably forgotten about the Book I Chapter 2 references to Saruman when he is discussed again in Book II Chapter 2!
But that’s what a more careful reader that I was might know when, in Council of Elrond, Galdor of the Havens asks why Saruman is not present.
Gandalf’s answer to this question is circuitous. By all means (re)read this part of the chapter if you wish, but it is slim pickings, so here is a summary:
- We learn that Saruman was indeed one of the White Council that evicted The Necromancer, and that Saruman “dissuaded us [the Council] from open deeds against him”, until when at last the Council acted “we were too late, as Elrond foresaw”. And then, at the final White Council meeting, Saruman spoke to allay fears that the now openly-declared Sauron had any chance of regaining the One Ring.
- Then there is a long passage about Gandalf’s detective work to identify Frodo’s Ring -- with some interruptions from Boromir and news of Gollum’s escape – before Gandalf comes round to addressing Saruman’s absence at the Council.
So now (finally!) we are at the text:
‘At the end of June I was in the Shire, but a cloud of anxiety was on my mind, and I rode to the southern borders of the little land; for I had a foreboding of some danger, still hidden from me but drawing near.”
If you can, I recommend (re)reading the account that follows. It can be surprising what new thigs one sees on re-reading, or how this clears away impressions that conflate the films or other adaptations from what Tolkien actually wrote.
Before I suggest some things we might discuss this week from that passage, I wanted to talk about framing. We have not ‘met’ Saruman in the story yet, and nor will we until he steps out onto the balcony of besieged Orthanc. We are receiving Gandalf’s accounts of his superior. This is a choice Tolkien made about how to tell the story, of course. Tolkien could, presumably, have left off describing Frodo’s journey at some point in Book I and switched to an account of Gandalf’s whereabouts. Instead, we stuck with Frodo in Book I and here is an account related to Frodo by an eyewitness to brief other characters and as exposition for us. As a consequence, we get an account that is from Gandalf’s point of view – what he saw or surmised -- and the account is delivered in character. See if you think these authorial decisions influence the picture of Saruman we get here, and if so how the choices colour it.
For the purpose of this discussion (and for my own amusement!) let’s divide Gandalf’s account of his trip to Orthanc into:
Phished! – A Gandalf who is already uneasy (wizard psychic powers?) meets a messenger with a ‘phishing’ message. I’m being a bit playful using the term 'phished', but note that the choice of a messenger Gandalf will trust, and the call that haste is needed to prevent disaster are out of the phisher’s playbook. Is Saruman the Phisher King? More seriously, what does Saruman’s message reveal about him and what he knows or thinks will precipitate a panicked rush to Orthanc?
Uh-oh. On arrival at Orthanc, several things about Saruman’s new look and behaviour start to make Gandalf uneasy. Please allow for Tolkien being a writer here, carrying readers on the right emotional ride, that we should feel only subtly at first that not all is well. Does that work for you? How is it done? Also, think about why Gandalf would be getting more and more suspicious and what he might feel he is learning.
Is it wise of Saruman to scoff at Gandalf, threaten him “and here you will stay”, and show off his new look? How does that help Saruman’s plot, assuming that the point of the meeting is to try and persuade Gandalf to reveal information or be fooled into helping Saruman? If Saruman is being unwise here, why do you think that is?
Offers: There are two: (1) We can’t help that Sauron is going to win the coming War. The clever thing will be to manipulate him as best as we may. Don’t like that idea? Offer (2) Yeah, you’re right Gandalf! Who needs that idiot Sauron anyway if we can get his Ring?
It seems that The Voice (Saruman’s magical power to sound persuasive) is not working too well on Gandalf. And of course, Tolkien does not have The Voice; Saruman cannot use magic to convince readers of the book, and Tolkien decided to render any magical effect by showing us (from the style in which Saruman is recounted, as opposed to Gandalf telling us about a magical effect he noticed and resisted). So Tolkien has written the speech of a skilled but very untrustworthy speaker.
I think he's done a fine job of that. Saruman sounds very like a dodgy politician to me!
Forum Terms of Service means we must nor discuss any contemporary politicians that anyone might think Saruman resembles. Historical figures ought to be safe though. I wonder whether some of Tolkien’s readers in the 1950s might think of people who enabled or appeased Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin, for example.
(But Actually....? It's OK, I’m aware that Tolkien did not consciously write his characters to represent real-life people. But then as now readers are able to make such comparisons, whatever Tolkien may have intended. There has to be some way in which readers can comprehend Saruman after all, or he will just seem too confusing or far-fetched and the story will fail. And dogy manipulative people are common enough to experience personally or in public life and historical events.).
What can we learn about Saruman from these offers? Clearly they don’t give us a full and frank description of his intentions.
- Some things are clearly Saruman knowingly lying – as Gandalf immediately says, it won’t be possible for them to use the One Ring together. Saruman surely knows this too.
- Other parts could be Saruman saying stuff without caring whether it is true or not, provided it suits his purpose.
- And maybe there are some things Saruman believes sincerely: or is voicing to fool himself?
A paradox about a liar is that their lies reveal some truth – the information they give is false, but something can be inferred from their decision to lie, and the sort of lie they chose.
Let’s see what we can pick apart.
As far as I can see, the later parts of Gandalf’s account don’t tell us much about Saruman – but please do add anything I’ve overlooked or that seems relevant to you (in the later parts of the account or in the bit’s I’ve just discussed)!
We’ve recently studied Boromir and Denethor, both of whom also want the Ring. Boromir wants it to become an invincible war leader. Denethor wants it to keep it safe in Minas Tirith, so that he does not need to worry that Sauron will be able to use it against Gondor. Both are terrible plans of course, but they are plans. There is at least one part of these Men looking for a way to do something reasonable enough – save their country from defeat in war. But what does Saruman want with the Ring do you think, other than to be the one who has it?
Somebody, complaining about a real-world administration (that I shall not identify in either place or time-period) once amused me by saying it could be summed up as “MEH”: Malice, Entitlement and Half-arsery. To put that less compactly the accusation was that power had come to people with an invincible sense of their entitlement to both rule and to exact revenge on anybody they felt had thwarted or competed with them. But they had no over-riding ideas or direction over and above whatever served the tactical needs of the moment. So ideas came and went without any real drive to see them through. Is Saruman like that? No real idea except "get the Ring because I deserve it?"
Gandalf declines both of Saruman’s offers. I have never found that surprising. Did Saurman really expect Gandalf to agree? If not, what was the point of making these offers?
“jailor of Mordor”: Gandalf is imprisoned. Later, Gandalf will say that Saruman was acting as the “jailor of Mordor”. How do you interpret this (assuming that Gandalf has given a correct description?)
- Is Saruman consciously acting on Sauron’s orders (the offers, in that case were perhaps an attempt at a double-cross Sauron)?
- Or is Saruman being controlled by Sauron without realising it?
- Or does Gandalf mean that Sauron would eventually discover that Saruman had imprisoned Gandalf for his own purposes, demand the prisoner, and force Saruman to hand him over (just as Sauron’s agents later demand the captured hobbits)?
- Or of course, maybe you have a better explanation than any of the above!
I think it could be fun to compare Saruman and Sauron (though not all at once please – to avoid eclipsing later weeks I suggest we don’t compare them as military generalissimos right now, for example). But if you wish, do compare Saurman’s attempts to persuade Gandalf (if persuasion is his game) with Gloin’s account of Sauron’s messenger earlier in the Council of Elrond chapter.
I thought that to end I’d also briefly mention a point from the Unfinished Tale The Hunt For The Ring. This has Tolkien in historian mode, recreating the travels of the Black Riders, and so most of it does not seem relevant to this diiscussion. There are two daft texts that touch on Saruman.
In the text that Christopher Tolkien presents as the main one, the Black Riders turn up at Isengard two days after Gandalf’s escape. Saruman says to them:
‘I know what you seek, though you do not name it. I have it not, as surely its servants perceive without telling; for if I had it, then you would bow before me and call me Lord. And if I knew where this thing was hid, I should not be here, but long gone before you to take it. There is one only whom I guess to have this knowledge: Mithrandir, enemy of Sauron. And since it is but two days since he departed from Isengard, seek him nearby.’” This made me wonder why Saruman, knowing the Ring is in the Shire, doesn’t go and get it himself?
There is also a ‘Text C’ of The Hunt For The Ring in which the Black Riders show up at Isengard even as Gandalf is escaping from the roof.
In C, on the other hand, the Black Riders arrived at the Gate of Isengard while Gandalf was still a prisoner in the tower. In this account, Saruman, in fear and despair, and perceiving the full horror of service to Mordor, resolved suddenly to yield to Gandalf, and to beg for his pardon and help. Temporizing at the Gate, he admitted that he had Gandalf within, and said that he would go and try to discover what he knew; if that were unavailing, he would deliver Gandalf up to them. Then Saruman hastened to the summit of Orthanc–and found Gandalf gone. Away south against the setting moon he saw a great Eagle flying towards Edoras.”
Considering Text C for a moment: I do quite like that idea of Saruman attempting to reverse course. But can you make it work to imagine that Saruman had sincerely recanted, but then made not further attempt (that we know of) to contact Gandalf or other member of the White Council to surrender? Not sure that I can.
Finally: Real-life business means that I may not be as prompt as I often have been to reply to replies. My apologies – any delay is not disinterest in what you’ve posted! But with any luck a brisk and delightful conversation will start up anyway.
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
(This post was edited by noWizardme on May 29 2023, 9:55am)
|
|
|
Ethel Duath
Half-elven
May 29 2023, 10:00pm
Post #2 of 63
(2286 views)
Shortcut
|
I didn't see that coming. 
Yes, I think he might be. And Denethor might be the "fisher" king, by contrast, in that he was always fishing for information, but wasn't trying to trick anybody. And Theoden might be the "real" Fisher-King, being disabled for a time, and then healed. But to be serious, I doubt whether Tolkien meant Theoden to represent that figure.
Back to Saruman:
I was always frustrated that Gandalf and the rest of the council kept taking Saruman's word for everything, even when it it seemed it would be risky to do so, and especially when Gandalf had sensed that things weren't quite what they should be, or used to be, in regard to Saruman's character. “I might perhaps have consulted Saruman the White, but something always held me back." and "His knowledge is deep, but his pride has grown with it." That seemed to have commenced way back when Gandalf first found out about the Ring, and noted its effect on both Gollum (first) and then (later), on Bilbo. And then when Gandalf
noted that "The lore of the Elven-rings, great and small, is his province. He has long studied it, seeking the lost secrets of their making; but when the Rings were debated in the Council, all that he would reveal to us of his ring-lore told against my fears," it seems to an external point of view that it is very suspicious that Saruman would not reveal everything he's learned about the Rings of Power which then would help the White Council make an informed decision. Instead, he only shares what is reassuring, thereby hanging on to the power of that knowledge and leading everyone else astray--and letting Sauron get away to Mordor as a result.
I wonder if Saruman thought that outcome was worth it, because he thought Sauron might lead him to the ring? That seems like an enormous risk. But it's hard to imagine--to me at least--that Saruman had already "join(ed) with that Power," back when the White Council was considering whether to take action. I have a hard time imagining his motivation for this apparently deliberate strategy of delaying the Council's action back then. Perhaps his ego was already at such a point that he felt confident he could make use of Sauron to find the ring, but somehow be certain enough of beating him out in the search to make such a risk worthwhile.
However at this point, when Saruman has summoned Gandalf, it's clear--eventually--that he's moved entirely into "setting up on his own" mode. And here, again, it's pride that Tolkien pinpoints. Saruman's self-delusion is stunning, I think; but I also think it's in keeping with Tolkien's take on the risks of pride in all those who are in positions of power, all the way from the extreme example of Fëanor, all the way down to lesser and less damaging figures like Thorin. (I wonder if someone ever did a detailed study of pride in Tolkien's writings, what would the conclusions be? In broad strokes, it seems to lead to compromise and often eventual downfall, but with Saruman and Denethor, at least, it also led to self-deception).
(This post was edited by Ethel Duath on May 29 2023, 10:02pm)
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
May 30 2023, 9:01am
Post #3 of 63
(2268 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree, the White Council come out of this rather badly. Why, a reader might well wonder, aren't they suspicious sooner of Saruman's soothing words?
A second failure is Gandalf's personally. His proof that Frodo has the One Ring involves presenting several lines of evidence to the Council of Elrond (and of course to us readers). One is deductive:
- Bilbo (the Ringbearer at that point in the story) is living unnaturally long. Gollum has lived unnaturally long too.
- Therefore this must be a Great Ring. Which one?
- All but one of the Great Rings can be eliminated because they are either accounted for or have a gemstone, which this Ring lacks.
- So this Ring must be..... ..... ........ ........ [come on Gandalf, I have to hurry you...]
It seems pretty conclusive when framed that way. There is only One Ring left. Please click all boxes containing One Rings, unless you are a robot.
Why do Gandalf and the White Council not do better?
Saruman's magical Voice is an obvious but rather superficial explanation - it seems to clear things up at a stroke (or a hand-wave). But unless we are content to say "A Wizard Did It", it raises the further questions:
- What evidence of magical knobbling by using the Voice do we see in the text, if the assumption is that Tolkien wishes readers to understand that this is what has happened?
- Why do we think the Voice has started not to work so well, leading to these "what were we thinking?" moments?
(I'd be interested to hear peoples' thoughts on both those points. I dont' think I've asked enough questions yet ).
Aside from any knobbling people by magic, I note that thinking the unthinkable is hard. Real-world parallels can help us explore this (whilst being aware that on the one hand But Actually LOTR is not an allegory or a deliberate parallel to real-word events). I can eaily think of the 1930s Allied Powers or League of Nations making excuse after accommodation for Hitler; or the slowness with which it became widespread that our real word equivalent to pipe weed is carcinogenic; or that human activities really can affect weather systems. I can think of many Public Enquiries after disasters or major policy cock-ups where it becomes hard to understand why, given that all the dots were visible, nobody joined them (or was listened to rather than dismissed as a nutter when they did).
I think the run-up to World War II would have occurred very easily to Tolkien's first batch of readers, most of whom would have experienced it themselves. In fact we know that dod occur enough for Tolkein to use a World War II interpretation in his rebuttal of the idea he meant any allegory.) I think it is a natural parallel because in each case we have a leader who is utterly untrustworthy, and will only be stopped by superior force. And that realisation means fighting a war that already looks un-winnable.
Lastly, there is a possible explanation viewing LOTR as writing, and inevitably story that is not perfect. This explanation is that Tolkien needs to convice the readership of a number of different things during the Council of Elrond chapter. Maybe he makes it sufficiently easy for us that fridge logic suggests it should have been much easier for the characters.
As to why Saruman might have wanted to kick the can down the road rather than confront The Necromancer/Sauron.
In Council of Elrond, Glorfindel says:
“For it is clear now that even at the Council his feet were already on a crooked path. He knew that the Ring was not lost for ever, but wished us to think so; for he began to lust for it for himself.”
Thsi is bourne out in The Unfinished Tale Disaster of the Gladden Fields which has Tolkien saying:
“Long afterwards, as the Third Age of the Elvish World waned and the War of the Ring approached, it was revealed to the Council of Elrond that the Ring had been found, sunk near the edge of the Gladden Fields and close to the western bank; though no trace of Isildur’s body was ever discovered. They were also then aware that Saruman had been secretly searching in the same region; but though he had not found the Ring (which had long before been carried off ), they did not yet know what else he might have discovered.”
So I imagine Saruman is weighing up what actions, inactions and bluffs are his best bet to find the Ring, without either the White Council or Sauron realising that this is what he is up to. There's a sort of Cold War spy thriller to this, in which both Saruman and Gandalf are researching the One Ring, in secret because acting openly would give away information that other parties may not know . Whether Sauron is also looking (and if not, why not, and some problems either way) came up in a 'Favourite Chapters" discussion of Shadow of the past.
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
May 30 2023, 9:24am
Post #4 of 63
(2264 views)
Shortcut
|
Just to add that the tag "Wise Fools" might apply here to the White Council. It is of course used by Gandalf of Sauron, in that the one thing Sauron is never going to expect is a small party infiltrating Mordor to destroy the Ring.
Plot-wise it is essential Sauron is never going to think of this, because (I would think) it would be trivially easy to spare some legions of his vast arrmy to guard Mount Doom and make destruction impossible, even if Ringdestroyers seemed a very remote possibility.
Sauron's error, we're told (IIRC) is that he cannot think like his enemies, only project his own motives and patterns of thought onto them. Therefore, the only possible outcome of someone finding the Ring is that they will try to become a rival Ringlord.
Maybe the White Council have made the same mistake - unable to make the leap to thinking about Saruman the Wise as Saruman the Traitor because none of them would do that?
If so they've made that mistake despite noting that treachery is a recurring problem in dealing with Dark Lords, and noting that the One Ring is a serious source of temptation (which they are wise enough to resist, but sometimes only just).
But also, maybe Saruman performs a further un-intended service to the destruction of the Ring here.
Sauron, I assume, must realise that Saruman wants the Ring. "Look how even these so-called Wise can't resist falling to it" Sauron might say to hinself, deciding that there is no need after all to dispatch Legions I, III, VII and IX to Mount Doom.
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
|
|
|
Ethel Duath
Half-elven
May 30 2023, 10:55pm
Post #5 of 63
(2238 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"thinking the unthinkable": Yeah, I was going to add that in,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
but it got way too late.
As annoying and baffling as it is, it's actually very typical to believe and trust the people you're used to believing, or who seem to have the right or the status to be believed, and I think Tolkien knew that and used it. It's especially hard to shake off one's almost automatic acquiescence when the person in question has "credentials"; and Saurman's established credentials were of very, very long standing. As far as Gandalf knew, even if things seemed "iffy," they were all still pulling together against the Enemy. For Saruman to have not only left that effort, but to be sabotaging it would have been pretty hard to realize. My frustration is that with so much at stake, I would have hoped Gandalf would have paid more attention to his misgivings anyway.
I actually don't think it was "the voice" at all personally, although I don't have any evidence. I have a hard time believing High Elves and wizards would be particularly susceptible to it--and perhaps if Saruman had tried to use it to any extent, it might have served to trigger some suspicion in the others--unless it was just "Oh there he goes with the Voice again!"
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
May 31 2023, 9:20am
Post #6 of 63
(2218 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree - I don't think it is necessary to think Saruman is using The Voice when everyday conventional persusasiveness and manipulation might be sufficient.
But of course, it is perfectly plausible that he was using The Voice - this is one of those things that is all down to reader opinion and preference, I think (rather than something where there is a right answer in the back of the book).
Nor would " conventional persusasiveness and manipulation" and "The Voice" be distinct alternatives -- it seems to me that......
Oh, but hold up there NoWiz: I think we should postpone any thorough discussion of The Voice until we're watching it work and not work live from the balcony at Orthanc. No problem with us uncorking that bottle and giving it a sniff, I expect, but let's leave CuriousG the option of pouring it into the glasses and doing the tasting.
I've realised that one of the reasons I find Saruman interesting is that I'm scared of manipulative people. A safely-fictitious one whose schemes don't succeed too well is just the right amount of horror to be fascinating for me, I think.
Is that the way of it for anyone else?
My frustration is that with so much at stake, I would have hoped Gandalf would have paid more attention to his misgivings anyway.
I suppose Gandalf has a balancing act to do here. He is conducting his Ring investigation in secret, and doesn't end Chapter 2 by whisking Frodo and Sam off to Isengard (with or without hankerchiefs!). Just as well, of course.
On the other hand, even if he doesn't fully trust or like Saruman, perhaps it is worth taking some risks to work with him? Gandalf is the alliance-builder of Middle-earth par excellence. I think he'd have to be able to make common cause with a lot of difficult people, from proud prickly Denethor to all those foolish and ridiculous hobbits.
Perhaps this explains why Saruman's "phishing" invitation works - even if Saruman is an untrustworthy ally these days, Saruman may logically make common cause against a Nazgul incursion.
Is Gandalf's mistake not to realise that Saruman has guessed why the Nazgul have emerged (and thus the subject of the One Ring will inevitably come up)? Or is that just a risk that Gandalf feels has to be run?
Gandalf presumably has the choice (though he does not discuss thinking about it) of rushing back to Hobbiton and taking Frodo to Isengard with him, "for safety". Were Saurman honest, maybe Orthanc would be a good Nazgul-proof hidey place and Mt Doom expedition base. Maybe Gandalf does not do that only because he feels there is no time (has Saruman's "phishing" worked too well, to create such a feeling of haste that return to The Shire feels it would take too long, and is better to leave Frodo to evade the Nazgul by himself (an idea that sounds questionable, put like that)?) Or maybe it is because Gandalf doesn't trust Saruman enough. Just as well, of course.
I can think of a couple of reasons why Gandalf does not act more on his misgivings:
I suppose that, as a storyteller, Tolkien wants to bring everything to the very brink of disaster so that things can only be turned round by exciting heroism. (So no "I say, Bilbo - fancy seeing a volcano before we go home?" said Gandalf, while thinking to himself if The Necromancer is who I suspect then we'd better dump that hobbit ring before dealing with Mirkwood -- it's a long shot, but you can't be too careful. )
And also (hard sometimes to distinguish from the operations of Tolkien telling his story) some readers -- and Tolkien in later life, I think, certainly when he was writing UT/Quest of Erebor -- like to see things working out in the story according to the Plans of Eru. According to that view, performers have to play their part at the right point in the Music for it all to work.
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
(This post was edited by noWizardme on May 31 2023, 9:27am)
|
|
|
Felagund
Rohan
Jun 2 2023, 7:53pm
Post #7 of 63
(2125 views)
Shortcut
|
|
a little less misgiving, a little more action
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Thanks for leading the foray into the devices of Saruman, the 'Man of Skill' himself!
I'm struck, as you and Ethel D are, at how Gandalf is written as both loaded with early misgiving about the motivations and actions of Saruman, and a lack of conviction to act on his suspicions. To the point that without an eagle-shaped deus ex machine, Gandalf would have been forced to sit out the entire War of the Ring imprisoned in Orthanc (best-case) or have even been handed over to Barad-dûr (worst-case).
I'll highlight a couple of things about Gandalf's characterisation, as someone who suspects or even knows something but doesn't act, written before LotR and after. The first is from The Hobbit ('Out of the Frying-Pan into the Fire'), where, through Bilbo's eyes and thoughts, the reader can be forgiven for thinking that Gandlaf, from the get-go, doesn't believe Bilbo's story of his escape from Goblin-town, or rather than Gandalf suspects there's more to tell:
"He [Gandalf] gave Bilbo a queer look from under his bushy eyebrows, as he said this, and the hobbit wondered if he had guessed at the part of his tale that he had left out."
Turning to post-LotR writings, in 'The Hunt for the Ring', published in Unfinished Tales, we have this fascinating exchange between Gandalf and Saruman, at a meeting of the White Council in Rivendell, in III.2851, prompted by a bout of Saruman's displeasure at Gandalf's conduct:
"Gandalf did not laugh again; and he did not answer, but looking keenly at Saruman he drew on his pipe and sent out a great ring of smoke with many smaller rings that followed. Then he put up his hand, as if to grasp them, and they vanished. With that he got up and left Saruman without another word; but Saruman stood for some time silent, and his face was dark with doubt and displeasure."
Some first-class trolling by Gandalf, obviously. But also another example of Gandalf being a bit of a know-it-all, in an 'I'm on to you' kind of way, but keeping safely ensconced in the realm of do-nothing. Two passages written decades apart, either side of LotR, with all the contextual caveats to bear in mind, definitely. But a recognisable 'Gandalf trait' across those boundaries, in my view.
Is this the author humanising what is essentially an other-worldly being with worldly flaws? It can come across as an odd mix to me sometimes, of acuity with dither or misplaced judgement.
Regarding the Voice, I found this passage from Letter 210 mildly helpful - an at times scathing commentary on Morton Zimmerman's 1958 film script for LotR:
"Neither genuine hypnosis, nor scientifictitious variants, occur in my tale. Saruman's voice was not hypnotic but persuasive. Those who listened to him were not in danger of falling into a trance, but of agreeing with his arguments while fully awake. It was always open to one to reject, by free will and reason, both his voice while speaking and its after-impressions. Saruman corrupted the reasoning powers."
Certainly, Gandalf is on the losing side of multiple arguments at the White Council, regarding what to do about the Necromancer - even after the identity of that malign entity was discerned. Saruman always seemed to be able to marshal the 'right & rationale' arguments with the Council's membership. Except with Gandalf, of course, who felt frustrated by this and literally blew 'I know your plan' smoke in his boss's face because but otherwise appears to have been isolated. The above 'smoke rings' passage is the largest extant one we have, I think, about the Council in (in)action. And in it, just prior to Gandalf's fancy pipeweed manoeuvre, we see that Gandalf sits "apart, silent" from the rest of the Council - and ends up losing yet another debate to Saruman, despite his triumphant bit of smoke ring trolling at the end. Presumably Galadriel, Elrond and Círdan were present at this Council - each super-fans of the Grey Pilgrim in their own way. Yet they (or sufficient number of them) still go along with Saruman.
Galadriel has a bit of form with going along with the power of words, which I'll touch on tangentially (this is the Reading Room after all!) and briefly: Fëanor's fateful oration on Túna, after the death of Finwë and Melkor's theft of the Silmarils. Here, we have in 'Of the Flight of the Noldor', The Silmarillion:
"Fëanor was a master of words, and his tongue had great power over hearts when he would use it...".
"No oaths she [Galadriel] swore, but the words of Fëanor concerning Middle-earth had kindled her heart...".
All this is not to suggest that Saruman gave foaming at the mouth speeches at the White Council (I suspect they were relatively dull, if weighty, featuring an old guy smoking a pipe in the corner). But gifted, corrupting even, speakers could use their voice to sway, coax and beguile even the most discerning audiences. Except Gandalf, of course. But that's okay, as he's content with just having misgivings!
Anyway, apologies to Mithrandir fans (of which I'm one, btw). I've ended up, quite unintentionally, trolling him in turn. And enjoying it, to my eternal shame!
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
oliphaunt
Lorien
Jun 3 2023, 5:37pm
Post #8 of 63
(2049 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Power of Corruption vs the Power of Goodness
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Trust in Saruman’s lore is one reason Gandalf gives up his first hunt for Gollum.
But Bilbo’s behaviour when he is asked to give up the Ring alarms Gandalf in a way that “filled me with a fear that no words of Saruman could allay”.
The actions of the humble and innocent expose corruption. Gandalf's love of the Shire and respect for Hobbits serves to inform him that something is very wrong with Saruman. Bilbo's uncharacteristic possessiveness for the Ring is correctly interpreted by Gandalf. If Gandalf had a different relationship with Bilbo, he might have dismissed rather than being deeply concerned about changes in his friend. Gandalf was misled by Saruman but educated by Bilbo. One of the most beloved features of LOTR is the affirmation of simple decency and goodness and its surprising power.
*** Middle Earth Inexpert ***
|
|
|
oliphaunt
Lorien
Jun 3 2023, 6:26pm
Post #9 of 63
(2046 views)
Shortcut
|
If Saruman is being unwise here, why do you think that is?
Did Saurman really expect Gandalf to agree? If not, what was the point of making these offers?
Saruman's arrogance here seems a little over-the-top. I'd expected more subtlety. It does point out that Saruman was already completely turned to evil. Saruman doesn't expect Gandalf to agree or willingly divulge any information about the location of the Ring. He is quite sure of himself and believes Gandalf has no chance of fighting back. He's taunting Gandalf, bullying and enjoying it. He assumes Gandalf will eventually yield as the only way to save himself. Saruman can't recognize selflessness, or an unassailable commitment, as he has no honor.
Also, Saruman knows what readers have learned about Gandalf the Grey: he second guesses himself and hesitates to act when in doubt. Galadriel thinks very highly of Gandalf, as does Elrond. But Gandalf has some self-doubt. This may be partially because he is cautious, and humble, which are strengths. But it's also a weakness that Saruman wants to exploit.
*** Middle Earth Inexpert ***
(This post was edited by oliphaunt on Jun 3 2023, 6:40pm)
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Jun 3 2023, 6:57pm
Post #10 of 63
(2034 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree! The smoke rings episode, lovely though it is, is problematic to fit with Gandalf's seemng lack of suspicion when he sets off to Orthanc. I notice that Christopher Tolkien says in UT/Hunt for the Ring that the smoke rings bit appears in half a dozen manuscripts. Maybe this means that Tolkien liked it, but could not quite find a way to make it work?
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Jun 3 2023, 7:08pm
Post #11 of 63
(2034 views)
Shortcut
|
inspired by Felegund to check some more of UT/Hunt for the Ring I find:
“He was himself so far fallen that he believed all others of the Council had each their deep and far-reaching policies for their own enhancement, to which all that they did must in some way refer.”
Section (iii) Concerning Gandalf, Saruman and the Shire So maybe Saruman can't understand Gandalf except by projection of what he (Saruman) would do.
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
|
|
|
oliphaunt
Lorien
Jun 3 2023, 7:41pm
Post #12 of 63
(2033 views)
Shortcut
|
Regarding the Voice, I found this passage from Letter 210 mildly helpful - an at times scathing commentary on Morton Zimmerman's 1958 film script for LotR:
"Neither genuine hypnosis, nor scientifictitious variants, occur in my tale. Saruman's voice was not hypnotic but persuasive. Those who listened to him were not in danger of falling into a trance, but of agreeing with his arguments while fully awake. It was always open to one to reject, by free will and reason, both his voice while speaking and its after-impressions. Saruman corrupted the reasoning powers."
Leaders (including politicians, coaches, ceo's, preachers and so on) are charismatic. Whatever they say just sounds true. A competent person less endowed with charisma could say the exact same reasonable thing and be unconvincing. Charisma helps persuade. Combined with good reason and good intentions charisma can help achieve greatness. But, yup, charisma also works to persuade with ill reasons and evil intent. Charisma can hide a psychopath with charm.
Bilbo has charisma, as did Smaug. Frodo has it. Elrond for sure as did Feanor. Sauron, oh yes, until he lost his ability to charm and had to turn to brute force instead. And Saruman, with his Voice.
*** Middle Earth Inexpert ***
|
|
|
oliphaunt
Lorien
Jun 3 2023, 8:07pm
Post #13 of 63
(2031 views)
Shortcut
|
Wizards, as maiar, are immortal. What are the downsides of their endless lives? Is that addressed in any writings?
I do recall discussions regarding Elves losing the will to live.
But what of wizards?
I can see the problem with immortal beings having free will.
Did Saruman get bored and wind up turning to evil for something new to do?
*** Middle Earth Inexpert ***
|
|
|
uncle Iorlas
Rohan
Jun 3 2023, 10:23pm
Post #14 of 63
(2007 views)
Shortcut
|
|
a little telephone game between rivals
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If Saruman is being unwise here, why do you think that is?
Did Saurman really expect Gandalf to agree? If not, what was the point of making these offers? Saruman's arrogance here seems a little over-the-top. I'd expected more subtlety. It does point out that Saruman was already completely turned to evil. Saruman doesn't expect Gandalf to agree or willingly divulge any information about the location of the Ring. He is quite sure of himself and believes Gandalf has no chance of fighting back. He's taunting Gandalf, bullying and enjoying it. He assumes Gandalf will eventually yield as the only way to save himself. Saruman can't recognize selflessness, or an unassailable commitment, as he has no honor. Also, Saruman knows what readers have learned about Gandalf the Grey: he second guesses himself and hesitates to act when in doubt. Galadriel thinks very highly of Gandalf, as does Elrond. But Gandalf has some self-doubt. This may be partially because he is cautious, and humble, which are strengths. But it's also a weakness that Saruman wants to exploit.
Very quickly, two points: one, Saruman has been brimming with resentment toward Gandalf for a very long time by the time he delivers this speech. Consider: there are only four people we specifically know attend the extraordinarily rare meetings of the White Council. One is Saruman, whose specialty it is to study the devices of the enemy, and who therefore has been at pains to learn everything he can about the history and nature of the Great Rings.
The other three, collectively, are wearing all three of the Three every time they meet him, and do not seemingly divulge this fact to him. But surely he must suspect at least one or two of them! They come to him to have the Rings explained but he's being cut out of the wielding of them. And then, by the time he's making his pitch to Gandalf, he's really pretty sure that Gandalf knows where the One is and is more or less taking it in hand to supervise its movements himself, without checking in with anybody.
It doesn't take very much pride on Saruman's part to feel abominably slighted by all of this. Maybe he feels like he should be trying to recruit Gandalf and persuade him, but his own underlying resentment after all this time makes even so subtle a person unable to resist simply showing off to his rival. He has been, on some emotional level, impatient for the day that Gandalf, to his dismay, realizes how clever and powerful and ambitious Saruman is, realizes how Saruman cannot be held back by lesser wizards! Maybe his heart isn't fully in his deceptions.
Two: we do hear all of this secondhand. I think we can trust Gandalf as far as his reportage of the facts go, and assume he isn't saying anything took place that didn't. But in relating the tone of Saruman's persuasive appeal, speaking from the embittered point of view of having been coaxed into a trap he was lucky to escape, Gandalf is maybe not even trying too hard to sum up Saruman's appeal in a manner that would sound very convincing to his audience at the moment, on the porch at Rivendell. Maybe it was better in person (in a way that isn't important to Gandalf's story now).
|
|
|
uncle Iorlas
Rohan
Jun 3 2023, 10:52pm
Post #15 of 63
(2003 views)
Shortcut
|
|
the long wisdom of Elrond (and the rest of the Wise)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I agree, the White Council come out of this rather badly. Why, a reader might well wonder, aren't they suspicious sooner of Saruman's soothing words? A second failure is Gandalf's personally. His proof that Frodo has the One Ring involves presenting several lines of evidence to the Council of Elrond (and of course to us readers). One is deductive: - Bilbo (the Ringbearer at that point in the story) is living unnaturally long. Gollum has lived unnaturally long too.
- Therefore this must be a Great Ring. Which one?
- All but one of the Great Rings can be eliminated because they are either accounted for or have a gemstone, which this Ring lacks.
- So this Ring must be..... ..... ........ ........ [come on Gandalf, I have to hurry you...]
It seems pretty conclusive when framed that way. There is only One Ring left. Please click all boxes containing One Rings, unless you are a robot. Why do Gandalf and the White Council not do better?
Likewise the smoke ring moment in the White Council, as you point up, is a lovely visual but logically guts the plot necessity that Gandalf is without suspicion as he rides into Isengard to be captured.
That, though, may matter less, because the smoke ring thing isn't part of the main text. Nobody's reading aout that who hasn't already more or less digested the entire principal text and liked it.
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Jun 4 2023, 9:36am
Post #16 of 63
(1977 views)
Shortcut
|
I enjoyed both of those points!
There is a delicious irony in Saruman, having been up to his own secret plans (searching for the Ring, using the palantir) both assuming that everyone else is doing the same and that they should not. It's also a realistic enough behaviour -- the public figure who criticies rivals for what they do themselves.
And then again there is some truth in Saruman's accusations:
It's true that Gandalf "knows where the One is and is more or less taking it in hand to supervise its movements himself, without checking in with anybody."
Saurman has done his own independent research into acquring (rather than learning about) the One Ring. We know Galadriel has at least pondered the "what if..." of getting it. I wonder whether mirrors as well as palantirs have been involved in secret researches?
I don't remember whether we know for sure that the Keepers of the Three didn't tell Saruman what they had, but it seems perfectly plausible. Either way, we can infer Saruman knows it or guesses correctly- Saruman as a beggar responding to Elrond, Galadriel and Gandalf:
“For a moment his eyes kindled. ‘Go!’ he said. ‘I did not spend long study on these matters for naught. You have doomed yourselves, and you know it. And it will afford me some comfort as I wander to think that you pulled down your own house when you destroyed mine. And now, what ship will bear you back across so wide a sea?’”
What Saruman misses here, of course is that the Elves have pulled their own houses down willingly, for the wider cause. Perhaps he is by then, and might aalready be, unable to imagine a cause that does not also happen to suit his personal advancement?
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Jun 4 2023, 10:24am
Post #17 of 63
(1976 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Boredom with other peoeple's needs, perhaps
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Saruman's speech looks to me like he's saying "only I know how to save Middle-earth. Therefore only my opinions count, and everyone else is too stupid or weak to consder - they are just either an asset or an obstacle to my schemes.":
“‘He drew himself up then and began to declaim, as if he were making a speech long rehearsed.
“The Elder Days are gone. The Middle Days are passing. The Younger Days are beginning. The time of the Elves is over, but our time is at hand: the world of Men, which we must rule. But we must have power, power to order all things as we will, for that good which only the Wise can see.
‘“ And listen, Gandalf, my old friend and helper!” he said, coming near and speaking now in a softer voice. “I said we, for we it may be, if you will join with me. A new Power is rising. Against it the old allies and policies will not avail us at all. There is no hope left in Elves or dying Númenor.
Ownership of the One Ring is of course the ideal way to pursue such schemes - it epitomises the ability to beat down all resistance to one's own will, at first because it is boring or inconvenient to have to consider what anyone else wants, and they are so frustratingly slow and muddle-headed, and the need is so urgent. (Later it becomes domination in the crudest available way, just for domination's sake).
Perhaps immortality does help breed an aloof arrogance about the needs and views of "lesser" folk. But one wonders not from what Saruman means to save Middle-earth, but for whom?
(I made a similar point about Denethor, who I also accused of confusing the Greater Good first with the Good of Gondor, and then with his own. I also think they are both done down by a feeling of superiority).
But such things are also just part of human character - whether that is corrupted by power, or mearly revealed or enabled by it - and observable in the real world where nobody is immortal.
Gandalf - equally immortal - is different. I think the difference lies in hiking around Middle-earth, meeting people and regarding them as people . Saruman's forays, into relationships are, I think about how best to model others in his mental game map of policies and schemes. Or to find out what he needs to know. Or to further existing schemes. I don't think he sees any point in relationships that don't serve him some purpose.
And such wooden-block plans go amiss because you forgot people are people (who can still surprise you in a pinch after a hundred yars when you knew everything you thought you could know about them after a month): they are not wooden blocks in a wargame, after all :
If you take a flat map
And move wooden blocks upon it strategically,
The thing looks well, the blocks behave as they should.
The science of war is moving live men like blocks.
And getting the blocks into place at a fixed moment.
But it takes time to mold your men into blocks
And flat maps turn into country where creeks and gullies
Hamper your wooden squares. They stick in the brush,
They are tired and rest, they straggle after ripe blackberries,
And you cannot lift them up in your hand and move them.
It is all so clear in the maps, so clear in the mind,
But the orders are slow, the men in the blocks are slow
To move, when they start they take too long on the way -
The General loses his stars, and the block-men die
In unstrategic defiance of martial law
Because still used to just being men, not block parts.
John Brown's Body, Stephen Vincent Benet
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
|
|
|
oliphaunt
Lorien
Jun 4 2023, 1:24pm
Post #18 of 63
(1959 views)
Shortcut
|
Thanks for this lovely well considered response. So Saruman's lack of personal relationships, friendships, is either a symptom or a cause of his downfall?
I do believe we have just encountered another one of the enduring and endearing themes of LOTR. Friendship, or Fellowship if you will.
The quote you provided from "John Brown's Body' describes well the consequences for leaders who de-humanize their troops. We'll see as we continue to read Saruman how his military plans fall out.
Gandalf's reflection on hobbits, "who can still surprise you in a pinch" recognizes that despite his immortality, his superior wizardly powers, his membership in the Wise, he still has something to learn. Unlike Denethor and Saruman, Gandalf isn't a know-it-all. What would a "surprise" be? Unexpected strength that comes from essential goodness? Unpredictable cleverness? Remarkable tenacity?
*** Middle Earth Inexpert ***
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Jun 4 2023, 3:21pm
Post #19 of 63
(1953 views)
Shortcut
|
So Saruman's lack of personal relationships, friendships, is either a symptom or a cause of his downfall?
I do believe we have just encountered another one of the enduring and endearing themes of LOTR. Friendship, or Fellowship if you will.
To be honest, I hadn't explicitly thought of that - but it's an excellent point!
I'm thnking about The Fellowship of the Ring as a term. The titular one is an association trying to destroy the Ring (and some new friends who are going the same way for a while)
A Fellowship of the Ring as a group trying to use it together would be impossible, we are told. It would have to end with one Ring Lord (or Lady) having done in the others.
Maybe the White Council is a sort of failed Fellowship of the Ring - not explicitly formed to deal with the Ring, but certainly failing to do so (or to deal with the Ring's creator) and now foundered on the Elvis Principle (that We Can't Go On Together, With Suspicious Minds )
Hobbity surprises - well Bilbo and Frodo were the only real eye-openers at the Council of Elrond (according to Gandalf). The other expedition hobbits probably surprise people too.
Back in the Shire, we have surprise Resistance heroes Lobelia and Fredeagar (do they have to stop calling him 'Fatty' in starved hero mode when he at last becomes more than the butt of Tolkien's fat-phobic jokes?)
But the flip side of that should rightly be the hobbits who were the Ruffian Regeime's collaborators and Mitlauferen -- who knew hobbits would make those moral compromises?
I don't want to eclipse the Sharkey discussion But maybe I can park the idea that if (from uncle iorlas' post earlier) Saruman starts off motivated to settle old White Council scores and slights, then maybe he has something in common with his Shire agent, then puppet and (possibly at the end ) lunch Lotho Sackville-Baggins, adn his score-settling with those other Bagginses?
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
|
|
|
oliphaunt
Lorien
Jun 4 2023, 6:06pm
Post #20 of 63
(1934 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Both association and friendship
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
While fellowship can refer to an association with a common goal, it also has a strong connotation of friendship and comradeship. One of the reasons the White Council failed was lack of friendship and trust -Saruman was not friend to anyone nor a trustee of Middle Earth. The Fellowship that succeeded in dealing with the Ring was strengthened by real friendship, those that were present from the beginning, and those that grew out of shared experience.
Saruman is motivated in part by envy? I agree, and bet we'll see more instances of that as his mask slips.
*** Middle Earth Inexpert ***
|
|
|
Felagund
Rohan
Jun 4 2023, 6:42pm
Post #21 of 63
(1927 views)
Shortcut
|
|
a catastrophic failure of empathy, as told in 'The Tale of the Failings of Team Aulë'
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
That passage you cite from 'The Hunt for the Ring' can pretty much be used to describe Sauron and the way he thinks about the motivations and priorities of his enemies or indeed any other actor in Middle-earth. Total lack of empathy and locked into seeing the world monomaniacally. As per Gandalf's words in 'The Council of Elrond' chapter of LotR:
"For he [Sauron] is very wise, and weighs all things to a nicety on the scales of his malice. But the only measure he knows is desire, desire for power; and so he judges all hearts."
Which is why Gandalf's feint at the Black Gate is a good percentage of the best shot the Free Peoples have left, as it plays so well on Sauron's rigid assumptions - alongside the mission to Mount Doom itself. Similarly, Saruman's assumptions, as set out in the passage you quote, effectively characterise him as someone who also couldn't possibly contemplate the destruction of the One Ring.
It strikes me that there's something about these Maiar who start out as followers of Aulë that prevents them from 'getting' other sentients! They default to projecting their own desires onto everyone else, and to their massive cost. Thinking about it, even Aulë arguably goes to the brink of rebellion. A shame he didn't subsequently run a 'lessons learned' seminar for the benefit of Mairon and Curumo-Tarindor!
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
Felagund
Rohan
Jun 4 2023, 7:17pm
Post #22 of 63
(1923 views)
Shortcut
|
|
friendless tyrants vs fellowships & friendships
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
A great point oliphant! And very telling that Saruman has this to say about those who should be his friends and allies, when attempting to suborn Gandalf in Orthanc:
"Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends."
Not to mention his visceral disdain and exploitation of poor old Radagast, to trick Gandalf into going to Isengard in the first place. There's no room for anyone else in Saruman's vision, despite his risible offer to jointly wield the One Ring with Gandalf, should he cooperate.
And 'Knowledge, Rule, Order' could just as easily be the slogan for Sauron's equally monomaniacal, even older plans for Middle-earth, after the fall of Morgoth. A snippet from Letter 183:
"He [Sauron] had gone the way of all tyrants: beginning well, at least on the level that while desiring to order all things according to his own wisdom he still at first considered the [economic] well-being of the other inhabitants of the Earth."
No room for friends, allies and fellowships in that vision of the world, only pawns and slaves. And not only were Saruman and Sauron brought low by their flawed interpretation of the world and those in it, for Sauron it was merely the final in a series of catastrophic defeats at the hands of partnerships: notably, the alliance and partnership between Gil-galad and Elendil.
I'm reminded through a re-read of 'The Istari' chapter in Unfinished Tales of Curumo (Saruman) being obliged to take Aiwendil (Radagast) with him to Middle-earth, on account of pleasing Yavanna - also referred to as an imposition in CJRT's commentary. Even back then, in Valinor, Saruman is written as someone who comes across as someone who isn't willingly inclined towards company. And even during his journey into the East with the Blue Wizards - companionship for a time, at least - he ultimately comes back alone.
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
Felagund
Rohan
Jun 4 2023, 7:37pm
Post #23 of 63
(1918 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Saruman and the Keepers of the Three
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Did Saruman know the identities of the Keepers of the Three? He seems to have figured out that Gandalf had one of them, as written up in 'The Istari' chapter of Unfinished Tales:
"And the Grey Messenger took the Ring [Narya], and kept it ever secret; yet the White Messenger (who was skilled to uncover all secrets) after a time became aware of this gift, and begrudged it; and it was the beginning of the hidden ill-will that he bore to the Grey, which afterwards became manifest."
As you say, he must have made an educated guess as to the others. I note too in Elrond's reply to Glóin at the Council of Elrond that secrecy around these identities - and therefore the location of the Rings in question - was paramount. And I do love your observation about Saruman once again missing the point about choosing sacrifice for the greater good. This has been clear since the Council of Elrond, summed up nicely by Glorfindel:
"Yet all the Elves are willing to endure this chance [the passing of the Three]... if by it [the destruction of the One] the power of Sauron may be broken, and the fear of his dominion taken away for ever [sic]."
An aside: the Eldar have come along way since Fëanor, who was homicidally unwilling to destroy the Silmarils for the greater good, even when beseeched by the Valar themselves.
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Jun 4 2023, 10:48pm
Post #24 of 63
(1897 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm not sure Tolkien translated all the draft material found in Unfinished Tales into the final revisions of the books; otherwise, Saruman's imprisonment of Gandalf in Orthanc makes little sense if, in fact, Saruman knew Gandalf wielded Narya. If that were the case, wouldn't Saruman have attempted to wrest the Ring from Gandalf? It would seem a natural outcome of Saruman's covetous character.
|
|
|
Silvered-glass
Lorien
Jun 4 2023, 11:07pm
Post #25 of 63
(1890 views)
Shortcut
|
I think Tolkien's decision to convey the story of Gandalf's meeting with Saruman as very explicitly Gandalf's version of the events highlights that the reader needs to be watchful for potential unreliable narration. It would be very understandable for Gandalf to try to portray himself in a good light as much as possible and make himself seem wise even when (especially when) the undeniable fact is that he made a major mistake.
Some of Gandalf's fallibility can be seen in how Gandalf still has no idea that Saruman has financial dealings with the Shire. A first-time reader wouldn't know this either, but on later readings Gandalf's estimation can be seen as incorrect.
More concerning is the possibility that Gandalf may be outright lying about some details. In Gandalf's narration Saruman rejects the title of the White to be of the Many Colors instead, allowing Gandalf his famous retort about how Saruman has abandoned the path of wisdom. Yet, in the rest of the book, Saruman seems entirely happy to be the White Wizard dressed in white and the Many Colors thing never comes up again.
(Anyway, I can't help but notice that Gandalf's hat has earlier been described as blue and scarf silver... I think I'll skip this tangent for now though.)
There is also the issue of Saruman implying that he has made a Ring of Power of his own. This also is not followed on in the rest of the book, at least explicitly, but the issue is somewhat more defensible in that the characters involved would be expected to be quiet about their rings, if any.
---
I've been meaning for a long time to post a revised and expanded version of my old "Gandalf the White = Saruman" theory, but going from "some effort" to "high effort" turned out to be a major change, and the project was also hindered by multiple other projects. Seeing that Saruman was going to be the topic of discussion, I tried to get the revised version done as the top Tolkien priority, but unfortunately there wasn't enough time...
But what I was trying to get at with the previous paragraph is that I think that at no point in the book do we properly see the real Saruman under the name of Saruman. Our first view of Saruman is distorted by Gandalf's narration, and the later major appearances of Saruman are not the real Saruman but an inferior stand-in. Accepting this at face value leads to a very distorted image of Saruman and his capabilities. I think the real Saruman is far smoother and more dangerous than the generally accepted version, though also less dedicated to villainy.
I think I'm going to have to continue prioritizing the Saruman theory so that I can hopefully post it in a reasonable time. The current version is still very badly lacking though, so it won't be quick.
|
|
|
|
|
1
