|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Felagund
Rohan
Jun 8, 7:59pm
Post #51 of 63
(847 views)
Shortcut
|
Sauron is one of the best 'case studies' in this regard, I reckon. Melkor's seduction of Sauron away from Valar appears to be based on appealing to how Sauron already sees the world and wants things to be - albeit a corrupted version of that. The ever-fresh 'Text VII' of 'Myths Transformed' (Morgoth's Ring) (the equivalent of 'Song 2' from Blur, as some venerable feigned scholars would say) paints this picture:
"... it had been his [Sauron's] virtue (and therefore also the cause of of his fall, and of his relapse) that he loved order and co-ordination, and disliked all confusion and wasteful friction. (It was the apparent will and power of Melkor to effect his designs quickly and masterfully that had first attracted Sauron to him.)"
Sounds a bit like the 'Knowledge, Rule, Order' election slogan of a certain White-handed wizard! As it happens, the above passage goes on:
"Sauron had, in fact, been very like Saruman, and so understood him quickly and could guess what he would be likely to think and do, even without the aid of palantķri or of spies; whereas Gandalf eluded and puzzled him"
You could argue then that Sauron and Saruman don't fundamentally change in the way they think about the world. They just want to get to their version(s) of the promised land and order it nicely, without the clutter of other people's priorities mucking it up. The means to that end become ever more drastic, horrific and barbaric along the way, until, to paraphrase Tolkien, they go the way of all tyrants.
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
Jun 9, 2:08am
Post #52 of 63
(831 views)
Shortcut
|
I hope you can hear me nodding and saying, "By Jove, there's the answer!"
In Reply To
You could argue then that Sauron and Saruman don't fundamentally change in the way they think about the world. They just want to get to their version(s) of the promised land and order it nicely, without the clutter of other people's priorities mucking it up. The means to that end become ever more drastic, horrific and barbaric along the way, until, to paraphrase Tolkien, they go the way of all tyrants.
I was trying to think about non-Dark Lord, little-people decisions that anyone can make, such as, "I want to spend my whole life in this town to be near my parents" and "I'll do anything to make my marriage work." So, life events happen and force you to make choices, and you may have to move to another city to keep your marriage working. It doesn't mean you become a completely different person even though you've sacrificed something very dear to you and something that defined you. And in your own mind, you're staying true to your original self.
That's a very rough analogy to Sauron & Saruman trying to stick to the path of Order and sacrificing other values along the way. I am NOT endorsing or excusing them, by the way. Just trying to understand their workings as characters.
|
|
|
Ethel Duath
Half-elven
Jun 9, 2:41am
Post #53 of 63
(833 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes, this is very good. It's an extreme case
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
of a sort of idolatry: "Only my values have worth and importance." To the two S's, there may simply be no other values--they may be unable to conceive of any others at all. Or if not that, at least any others of any importance. Mercy, humility, and friendship/fellowship might be a representative trio of the preeminent values of Gandalf, Frodo, Aragorn, and to varying degrees, most other "good guys" (although humility isn't always so evident). Faithfulness would be in there, too, and that certainly doesn't seem to be a concept of any importance to either Sauron or Aragorn.
That's a very illuminating comment, there, by Tolkien.
|
|
|
Hamfast Gamgee
Grey Havens
Jun 9, 7:54am
Post #54 of 63
(821 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Gandalf and Saruman's relationshlp
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Looking at it Gandalf's relationship with Saruman always seemed a little cool. Compared to say Aragorn or Elrond or even Galadriel. Fortunately he did not reveal much of his relationships with the Hobbits or his suspicions or even location of the Ring to Saruman. But Saruman did reveal his intentions a little too soon. Here is a scenario. Saruman has not revealed his intentions to Gandalf before the company of the Ring leaves Rivendell and the council of Elrond. Gandalf considers Saruman a friend and somewhere for the company to go to for aid like Lorien. They arrive at Isengard all trusting and with the Ring. Why shouldn't they trust Saruman in this case? Then Saruman betrays them and seizes the Ring.
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Jun 9, 9:27am
Post #55 of 63
(826 views)
Shortcut
|
Bravo Felagund. Like CuriousG and Ethel D I had a certain a-ha! (or more appropriately Woo-hoo!) moment reading that.
Thank you for trying that take on me (or more appropriately Pleased to meet you, a new version of Saruman, driven by something a little different).
What I mean is that so far we have been considering a Saruman who is, I suppose, a sort of narcissist (at least in pop psychology usage of that term). That is, someone with no true belief or alliegance above his own need to become World King of Middle-earth. A need reached from one of two points, I think: either monstorous entitlement (I should rule Middle-earth because my ideas are the best), or a sort of over-compensation for a cripling pathological anxiety.
Such people crop up in real life in various prominent positions - either motive is very driving, I suppose.
If you want me to choose, I'll put down Melkor as the entitled sort, and for Saruman I'll recall the various yexts from Tolkien we have been discussing hinting at envy of Gandalf; maybe of some self-knowledge that Sarumans boots have always been too big to fit.
So it works for me to have Saruman as the sort of person who at some point felt a humiliation so keenly that humiliation must never be felt again. Maybe it doesn't matter how he got his head done when he was young: it's not his problem -- it's everyone elses in Middle-earth.
I'm thinking now of an interview I saw with a psychiatrist and couples-councellor to the very rich and powerful. She described this motive well, and how the need to become powerful enough to be un-humiliatable led people to both grab more and more power to feel safe, and then to feel the need to test whether they were now safe by some bizarre risk-taking in one field or another. (To give an example of how it can work out: The context of that interview was a British male politician whose attempted cover up of an extra-marital affair had torpedoed his career. It doesn't matter which man we're talking about - they come along like buses: you've seen many go past, there will be another along soon).
All of that works for me as a model of Saruman.
(And in that context oliphaunt's question about the Uruks and whether Ugluk's hero-worship of Saruman serves a confirmatory purpose is yet another good point from next week, I think)
But now, woo-hoo!
A different Saruman who is (or at least thinks himself) the humble tool of a god or cause. That's not to say that the Humble Tool does not conflate himself more and more with the god or cause until the two have identical beliefs and interests (according to H Tool, at least).
The over-riding rightness of the cause allows a comforting (or horrifying) extinction of any doubts that whatever means is worthwhile for the righteous ends. Well, of course he can lie, and be easy all of the time. Pleased to meet you, this cause that makes life so simple (even if "I'm never sure why I need you": because examination of that would re-open all those uncomfortable doubts again.)
It is easy to think of real-world historical characters like this, especially in times that have thrown up a power vacuum that is filling with revolution. So the short-lived British Republic ends up as a tyrrany of violent, genocidal Puritan nutters with guns under Oliver Cromwell. The French First Republic ends up in a terror of violent atheist "enlightened" nutters with gilloutines under Robespierre (who might have nodded enthusiastically at the slogan "Knowledge, Rule, Order").
So which is it in Saruman's case? Narcisist, Zealot or both? We can hardly get his head checked (by a jumbo jet or otherwise). I think either or both work for me, and maybe they are not either/or alternatives.
What a fun discussion!!! 
Alas poor Saruman: if only harmless Heavy Metal, rather than developing a mind of metal were what he'd found to get the emotional pins and needles he craves.
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Jun 9, 9:34am
Post #56 of 63
(816 views)
Shortcut
|
(I hope you read that in the appropriate Christopher Lee voice)
Better choice of the Cake or Death options, if you ask me.
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Jun 9, 10:08am
Post #58 of 63
(816 views)
Shortcut
|
A little more (or M.O.R)?
I've been thinking that the slaughterers who so often seem to take over a revolution in real-world history maybe have popular appeal because of the monstorous certainty they offer in confusing times. Do they fool themselves and then fool others; or fool others so successfully that they get high on their own supply? Who knows.
We don't see Saruman (successfully) appealing to other people all that much in the text. We are mostly discussing how Saruman's ideas come (or Sauron's if they are Sauron's really) to appeal to Saruman himself. But we can probably infer that he has been busy persuading the Dunlendings (or perhaps he has a Wormtongue equivalent in Dunland, that we don't get to meet)?
Gosh - so many great Reading Room ideas this week! Almost happenig fast enough to become a Blur. It's almost enough to make this Brit pop! 
PS: I wish the term 'Dunlendings' didn't make me imagine a nation of retired bankers. It is most distacting.
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
Jun 9, 3:22pm
Post #59 of 63
(807 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Fellowship vs cabal; the isolation of evil people
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I was trying to think from Melkor to Lotho, does any bad person ever have a community or fellowship? And I'd say never, unless you bring up orcs, but they are followers and not leaders. It seems a foundational ethic for the legendarium that if you are an evil leader, you are alone, and if you're good, you probably have comrades of some kind. Even though Bilbo and Frodo don't fit into mainstream society they still had friends and companions, because they're good people. And Gandalf may lead a solitary life but he has friends everywhere, from Butterbur to Treebeard.
That's fine for Tolkien, whom I don't expect to represent everything from the real world, but I would say that often enough in the real world there are cabals of bad people running drug rings or human trafficking or launching coups, etc, so bad people aren't all that lonely when it comes down to it. It might be more of a moral point that Tolkien was making, that the ultimate end for a bad person is isolation, and I'd agree with that in the real world. It seems that the longer a crime boss or dictator lives, the more likely a trusted lieutenant will stab them in the back, and the bad guy will die alone and friendless.
|
|
|
Ethel Duath
Half-elven
Jun 9, 5:14pm
Post #60 of 63
(800 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Aack! No. Yes. Saruman, not Aragorn!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'd call it either Automistake or Typing Too Late at Night (no idea which right now!).
|
|
|
Ethel Duath
Half-elven
Jun 9, 7:49pm
Post #61 of 63
(804 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Ah! So, the quest would stans upon the edge of a knife
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
from before the beginning of it. I suppose Saruman simply didn't have enough knowledge at this point to know if there was any advantage in waiting to see if some other strategy would work better.
|
|
|
Felagund
Rohan
Jun 11, 3:46pm
Post #62 of 63
(765 views)
Shortcut
|
Not a direction I was expecting we'd go but I'm pleased we went there :)
And I agree, Saruman as both narcissist and zealot works, particularly if we see Saruman as convinced that only he could order the world as it 'should' be, zealously executing that vision using literally any means possible, no matter how debased. And like many a narcissist, with Saruman it comes with, and is amplified by, an unhealthy dose of cankerous grievance and jealousy. I really like the power / safety dynamic you sketched out too.
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Jun 12, 1:15pm
Post #63 of 63
(737 views)
Shortcut
|
"Brit Pop Ainulindalė, A-lop-bam-boom?"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Oh wait, That's Little Richard.... 
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
|
|
|
|
|
