|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Curunir The White
The Shire
Dec 19 2014, 12:23am
Post #1 of 25
(2289 views)
Shortcut
|
Whenever reading The Lord of the Rings, I have noticed oddly that despite there being many characters who could be deemed more human, I oddly feel a closer relationship with Saruman, over all other characters, and I find him personally more human than any other character.
I never really saw Saruman as a villain, the only thing I really would categorise him as a villain for would be beating Grima, but other than that I cannot find it within me to deem him a villain.
Saruman represents industry, rather immediate change to industry - and how it is unsustainable. Saruman represents change all together, for good and for worse. Taking this rather opposite to Tolkiens view, I can certainly see the usefulness in Saruman's utilisation of industry, and necessary movements for it, such as the burning of Fangorn.
I would also say that I would see Saruman at times more hero like than Gandalf - which I would like to bring up to discuss.
Saruman mentions towards the end of the Return of the King book, when he is in presence of Galadriel and Gandalf, of how magic is fading within Middle-Earth.
I would appreciate it to not be assumed as a perversion of Tolkien's message, rather an interpretation for an industrial mind. Saruman had began to create and study within the works of the enemy [Sauron]. However, such industry is constantly shown with disdain from the protagonists view within LoTR. If Magic is fading in Middle Earth, and the Istari & Elves leave with it - is the works of Saruman not useful to the new age of men? Does Saruman not leave something behind that can help men prosper? Certainly industry has it's downsides, but it does seem that Gandalf had the interests of Hobbits and the shire in mind, rather than Middle Earth as a whole when showing disapproval of Saruman's new 'mind of metal and wheels' .
As I have stated, I personally feel closer to Saruman than any character - and often find myself in dealing with situations as he would.
How do you see Saruman?
Is Industry essential for a magical-less Middle Earth?
Is Saruman a villain at all - and by what standard?
Thank-you for reading, and I look forward to reading interpretations!
The friendship of Saruman and the power of Orthanc cannot be lightly thrown aside, whatever grievances, real or fancied, may lie behind.
|
|
|
squire
Half-elven
Dec 19 2014, 12:38am
Post #2 of 25
(2070 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Once you accept the inevitability of the modern era, your position makes more sense.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Without a doubt industrial technology is a double-edged sword, both raising living standards and rationalizing a more traditional morality. Saruman clearly plays the role in The Lord of the Rings of a prophet of industrialism. Should we still call him a villain, as you ask?
I guess my best answer would be: as you say, Middle-earth is doomed to lose its magic. Then it becomes planet Earth as we know it. Saruman might well win the Nobel prize on our Earth, or be acclaimed as a genius CEO like Watt or Ford or Edison or Gates. But in Middle-earth, the world Tolkien created as a fantasy version of a civilized earth whose "good" people have no real interest in 'metal and wheels' for better and worse, Saruman remains a villain of an order only surpassed by Sauron and Morgoth.
squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd & 4th TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion and NOW the 1st BotR Discussion too! and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
 = Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.
|
|
|
Gianna
Rohan
Dec 19 2014, 1:39am
Post #3 of 25
(2064 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think Tolkien's interpretation is the right one.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I do not believe that industrialisation and machinery are necessary for us to live healthy, happy, and productive lives. In fact, I believe quite the opposite. Almost all our current technology is very, very recent; for thousands and thousands of years human beings survived quite prosperously without all the modern stuff we have today.
Life used to be much, much simpler and, I think, better, before technology took the place it holds today! TV and the internet have opened up many opportunities for propaganda to be distributed to the masses, and many shows subtly weaken the values and morals that parents try to install in their children. It’s far too easy for young children to find bad stuff on the internet as well. Apparently internet is supposed to be helpful for impatient people (like me  ) but as far as I’ve seen, it only makes us want things even more quickly. I know I get much too annoyed when a website takes a little longer than usual to load!
Modern inventions are responsible for a lot of pollution, both air pollution and light pollution. Ever tried to stargaze in a city? I’m a few miles outside a city of about 367,000, and at night if it’s completely dark around me, I can see the glow from all the city lights. Imo, not very nice! Think of Isengard – Treebeard (I think it’s Treebeard) tells Merry and Pippin that lots of smoke rises from Isengard these days. Nasty air pollution.  And all the trees that are cut down to make Saruman’s machines work...
I think the Amish have it right when they boycott farm inventions like tractors for the reason that the more land you’re able to till, the larger your fields will be, and the farther you will be from your neighbours. Inventions like cars, etc., have made it possible for people to go far away from their home community, and as a result, neighbours are not nearly as neighbourly as they were as little as sixty years ago. I barely know my neighbours! Then again, to be fair, cars and planes enable us to more easily visit our extended family (we’re scattered all over North America), so they’re not all bad.
I tend to agree with Tolkien on most of his opinions, and his view of industrialisation is no exception. The Amish have avoided many new inventions, and they live very long and happy lives. I think it would be a great idea for many of us to tone down on the technology side of our lives too, and get back outside!
~There's some good left in this world. And it's worth fighting for.~
|
|
|
emre43
Rohan
Dec 19 2014, 9:07am
Post #4 of 25
(2022 views)
Shortcut
|
I 100% agree with both you and Tolkien
|
|
|
Curunir The White
The Shire
Dec 19 2014, 2:37pm
Post #5 of 25
(2011 views)
Shortcut
|
I quite like the fact that Tolkien was writing the perspective of the Lord of the Rings as;
Industrial Might - Antagonist view
Pre-Industrial, Simpler times - Protagonist view
This contrast is especially interesting in Saruman, as when he was a 'protagonist' - he would often walk through Fangorn, and study the trees but as he fell into becoming an 'antagonist' - he began to study the industrial works of Mordor.
However, one question I would like to ask is;
If the industry of Sauron was to reflect Sauron, for only war and malice alike - what is Saruman's? Saruman believes himself to be doing the right thing, so is his introduction of industry within Isengard not so much a product of wanting to destroy all, but rather in hope of helping and doing the right thing? I don't entirely like how it is often said that Saruman tried to copy Sauron, I always felt that Saruman held a mind of trying to use Saurons own devices against him, he seems far to proud to even consider trying to be like anyone else. (Well, apart from the pipe weed...)
I just really like Saruman, a lot. Infact, I daresay obsessed with the character and I enjoy seeing him in all sort of perspectives, but particularly in a protagonist perspective. He is the one character who I want to know anything and everything about.
The friendship of Saruman and the power of Orthanc cannot be lightly thrown aside, whatever grievances, real or fancied, may lie behind.
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Dec 19 2014, 4:07pm
Post #6 of 25
(2044 views)
Shortcut
|
|
“We will glorify war—the world's only hygiene”
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
We declare that the splendor of the world has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed. A racing automobile with its bonnet adorned with great tubes like serpents with explosive breath ... a roaring motor car which seems to run on machine-gun fire, is more beautiful than the Victory of Samothrace.
-Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, The Futurist Manifesto, 1909
The idea of the virtue of the agrarian life goes all the way back to Hesiod, Aristotle, and Xenophon. By the early 1900s, spurred by reaction to industrialization, this ideal had spawned the “Garden City” concept in Great Britain (Letchworth and Welwyn were the first such planned), as well as the “back to the land” movement, which spread to the rest of Europe and America. In opposition was the Italian Futurist movement, which glorified machines, the industrial city, and modernized warfare. Futurism spread to Great Britain as Vorticism, and to Russia as Cubo-Futurism. Futurism was pretty much dead by the end of World War I, its philosophic remnants absorbed into Benito Mussolini’s Fascist movement in the early 1920s.
We now pause in this post for an obligatory Tolkien quote:
“I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”
That said, one can see Saruman as a proponent of forward-looking machine-obsessed Futurism in opposition to the backward-looking blood-of-Numenor-obsessed agrarianism of the West.
One might easily imagine Saruman speaking these words to his Uruk-hai:
The oldest among us are not yet thirty, and yet we have already wasted treasures, treasures of strength, love, courage and keen will, hastily, deliriously, without thinking, with all our might, till we are out of breath.
Look at us! We are not out of breath, our hearts are not in the least tired. For they are nourished by fire, hatred and speed! Does this surprise you? it is because you do not even remember being alive! Standing on the world's summit, we launch once more our challenge to the stars!
Your objections? All right! I know them! Of course! We know just what our beautiful false intelligence affirms: "We are only the sum and the prolongation of our ancestors," it says. Perhaps! All right! What does it matter? But we will not listen! Take care not to repeat those infamous words! Instead, lift up your head!
Standing on the world's summit we launch once again our insolent challenge to the stars!
-The Futurist Manifesto
******************************************
"It was a bright cold day in April, and the mantle clock was striking thirteen."
|
|
|
HeWhoArisesinMight
Rivendell
Dec 19 2014, 5:54pm
Post #7 of 25
(2011 views)
Shortcut
|
Excellent post Darkstone,
Tolkien obviously was somewhat of an anti-modernist. Of course his work is not allegorical, but some of his views do creep into it. He fought in World War I, which was the first truly modern war in human history. In fact, this is where the concept of war as an industry (or industrial warfare) is borne.
But Tolkien wasn't necessarily (I think) against technology/industry itself, but how it could be used or the dangers inherent within it. Here, I think his religious views seep into his disapproval of what Saruman does. Unlike Gandalf, who is content to learn about the world through his own nature, Saruman goes beyond "his nature" to learn things that maybe he wasn't created to know.
It is either Gandalf or Treebeard who describe Saruman as one "who breaks a clock to see how it works." Humans now have the ability to study the entire genome, but at what cost has this knowledge come?
Sometimes the beauty of a thing is its mystery. Tolkien thought a lot of the mystery in the world was being destroyed by technology: if we can explain how everything works, where's the magic?
He thought that technology destroyed our appreciation of the "supernatural" ... I see this point, but I also think that the more we understand about the universe, the more incredible it becomes.
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Dec 19 2014, 6:57pm
Post #8 of 25
(1992 views)
Shortcut
|
I think we tend to romanticise the past a lot. The world is always moving forward abnd we have fear if that change. We know how we lived through the past, (or the fast that others did) and we relish the security of a certainty. However, the world must move forward and change. I think that those who would like to revert back are simply expressing the side of us that fears the unknown change.
Just my two cents.
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
danmax67
The Shire
Dec 19 2014, 9:24pm
Post #9 of 25
(2001 views)
Shortcut
|
Saruman is rather villanous. He seeks to enslave and rule all of Middle Earth, pipe dream though it may have been. He indiscriminately kills and destroys the lands. He imprisons or kills those that oppose him, if he cannot use 'magic' to dominate them. He was responsible for the violence and deaths in the Shire, and even tried to murder Frodo. Not exactly an upstanding citizen.
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
Dec 19 2014, 9:43pm
Post #10 of 25
(1986 views)
Shortcut
|
I find him entirely villainous.
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Dec 20 2014, 1:53pm
Post #11 of 25
(1974 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Welcome both danmax67 and Curunir The White - what an interesting subject!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
What makes Saruman scary for me is precisely the real-world-like way in which he seems to be set on certain goals, justifying the with noble words, but actually doing a whole lot of bad stuff.In another tread this week, we've been likening him to a couple of real-world figures http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=811909#811909
I really liked Curunir The White's formulation that "Saruman represents industry, rather immediate change to industry - and how it is unsustainable". (It's also true that Tolkien is too sophisticated a writer to have Saruman ONLY represent this - but certainly I see a lot of that in Saruman). This push for industry involves a lot of downside even before Saruman's final degenerate period in the Shire, when he seems only to be full of bitterness and revenge. Saruman has a lot to do, I think, with Tolkien's distrust of what he called "the Machine (or Magic)":
...the desire for Power, for making the will more quickly effective - and so to the Machine (or Magic). By the last I intend all use of external plans or devices (apparatus) instead of development of the inherent inner powers or talents - or even the use of these talents with the corrupted motive of dominating: bulldozing the real world, or coercing other wills. The Machine is our more obvious modern form, though more closely related to Magic than is usually recognized.
Tolkien letters - letter #131 I don't think "The Machine" needs to be literally a machine - it could be a bureacracy or organization, for example (Somewhere in the various documentaries supporting the Lord of the Rings movies, they have Prof. Tom Shippey pointing out that the worst of the Twentieth Centuries atrocities were achieved by beaureaucrats: they alone had the machinery to achieve - for example - a really effective and widespread genocide.)
So I agree with others already that in Tolkien's terms, its thsi bulldozing and dominating thing that makes Saruman a villian of sorts - possibly a tragic figure rather than yer standard Fantasy Bad Dude, whose evil... well 'cause he's evil (i.e. the author knows no mor ebecause he/she hasn't thought about the story from this character's POV, & is simply using this character as a plot vehicle or trope).
~~~~~~
"nowimë I am in the West, Furincurunir to the Dwarves (or at least, to their best friend) and by other names in other lands. Mostly they just say 'Oh no it's him - look busy!' "
Or "Hold off! unhand me, grey-beard loon!"
This year LOTR turns 60. The following image is my LOTR 60th anniversary party footer! You can get yours here: http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=762154#762154
|
|
|
Curunir The White
The Shire
Dec 20 2014, 5:53pm
Post #12 of 25
(1970 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Fantastic post - So this is what I personally think of Saruman:
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Thank-you very much NoWizardMe. I particularly enjoyed how you have compared Saruman to Cromwell. I feel that Saruman is not bound to just one real-word figure, but rather many - or infact, all of those who try justify the bad they do; those who would stand out from others would be the likes of Cromwell or Joseph Stalin (with the huge industrial step within a short period of time).
I have always felt that Saruman is so much more, and that he cannot be defined by anything. To one, Saruman is a hero, to another a villain and to another a tragic figure. So I would like to analyise Saruman, and perhaps show what Saruman is to me;
While it can be said that Saruman is villainous for the responsibility he holds for deeds carried out on his command; he is no better or worse than the likes of Churchill. While Saruman created the Uruk-Hai to fight for him and claim the ring, did Churchill not create a race of men, doomed to die in the horror that was World War II - to fight for England and keep the claim of England? On the account of war, Saruman is no better than Gandalf who helped rally the forces of Gondor and Rohan. Countless were lost on both sides, none is less siginficant than the other, both Uruk and Man.
Frodo said in The Return of the King
He was great once, of a noble kind that we should not dare to raise our hands against. - about Saruman
It is widely acclaimed that Saruman never went through a noticable transition to evil - I would further that. I would say that Saruman never went through that transition, rather Saruman became powerhungry - not evil. Saruman to me is what every leader in war has been, starting out with good intentions but achieving such goals with methods that don't meet with standard morality (Of course, I would like to bring into question Saruman's morality vs Standard Morality - Is Saruman any more wrong than you are?)
Christopher Lee, the perfect cast for Saruman, has said [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQVi_DC9HvI#t=130]here of how Tolkien has never explained this turning from Saruman The White to in a sense to Saruman the White. I don't think Tolkien has explained it for it's not there, Saruman is perhaps one of the greyest characters in the book.
I have always seen those who have said that Saruman is a 'Sauron wannabe'. I disagree with that entirely. When people say that, they forget about Sarumans characteristics, being Sauron alone would not be enough for Saruman, he would want to be better than Sauron (and given the ring, I feel that Saruman could have achieved that). Saruman long studied the devices of the enemy, it is only natural to try use them against the enemy. It's an effective method, one in which I would not deem Saruman villainous for attempting.
I also bring into question of how true where the things Gandalf had said about Saruman. They were no more true than what Saruman had said about Gandalf during The Voice of Saruman Chapter - The Two Towers. Is it? Is there any reason that we should trust the word of Gandalf over Saruman? Not to me, for Gandalf is no better than Saruman, to me.
Saruman's primary shortcoming is his impatience, his desire to do good leads to a desire to force others to do good, and when they resist? That leads to our lust for power. Saruman's only failure was abiding to the rules of the mission he was sent to do. Saruman could have completed the mission, but he would have eventually overstepped the rules in attempting to rule Middle Earth - however, like Gandalf, I believe through the ring, Saruman would intend to do good, but through the ring, he would be a dictator - worse than Sauron.
Overall, Saruman had good intentions, though bad methods of achieving it. Saruman had impatience, but it was impatience waiting to do a good thing. Saruman had a mission that he would be superb at - but the rules restricted what more he could have done. For that reason, I do not view Saruman as a villain, I do not view him as a tragic figure (as he never fell in my eyes) - within his Character, Saruman to me is a hero. He is a noble hero, as much as Gandalf is a hero.
Don't take the opinion of other characters on Saruman, always take what Saruman has said about himself, and his actions in comparison with others - that is how I have came to the conclusion of how I view Saruman.
The friendship of Saruman and the power of Orthanc cannot be lightly thrown aside, whatever grievances, real or fancied, may lie behind.
|
|
|
squire
Half-elven
Dec 20 2014, 6:10pm
Post #13 of 25
(1961 views)
Shortcut
|
|
A very unconventional argument
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As you say, you are expressing your own personal opinion of Saruman, so it would be hardly polite to try to dissuade you of it. I'm sure you know, too, that your equating Saruman to Gandalf, and Hitler to Churchill, is not original:
"...am I to be called a murderer, because valiant men have fallen in battle? If you go to war, needlessly, for I did not desire it, then men will be slain. But if I am a murderer on that account, then all the House of Eorl is stained with murder; for they have fought many wars, and assailed many who defied them. Yet with some they have afterwards made peace, none the worse for being politic." - LotR III.10
squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd & 4th TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion and NOW the 1st BotR Discussion too! and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.
|
|
|
Curunir The White
The Shire
Dec 20 2014, 6:14pm
Post #15 of 25
(1958 views)
Shortcut
|
I would just like to say that I didn't once mention Hitler in my post - I compared Saruman to Churchill.
Those who listened unwarily to that voice could seldom report the words that they heard; and if they did, they wondered, for little power remained in them. Mostly they remembered only that it was a delight to hear the voice speaking, all that it said seemed wise and reasonable, and desire awoke in them by swift agreement to seem wise themselves. When others spoke they seemed harsh and uncouth by contrast; and if they gainsaid the voice, anger was kindled in the hearts of those under the spell. For some the spell lasted only while the voice spoke to them, and when it spoke to another they smiled, as men do who see through a juggler's trick while others gape at it. For many the sound of the voice alone was enough to hold them enthralled; but for those whom it conquered the spell endured when they were far away, and ever they heard that soft voice whispering and urging them. But none were unmoved; none rejected its pleas and its commands without an effort of mind and will, so long as its master had control of it.
|
|
|
Curunir The White
The Shire
Dec 20 2014, 6:17pm
Post #16 of 25
(1950 views)
Shortcut
|
Yup! I feel that a ringbearing Saruman would have tried to do good, but to an extent of where his attempt to be righteous in mixture of his own self-righteousness (I'm laughing at how self-righteous Saruman is already). I think I may later attempt to try record my interpretation of a 'what if __________ got the ring?' scenario
Those who listened unwarily to that voice could seldom report the words that they heard; and if they did, they wondered, for little power remained in them. Mostly they remembered only that it was a delight to hear the voice speaking, all that it said seemed wise and reasonable, and desire awoke in them by swift agreement to seem wise themselves. When others spoke they seemed harsh and uncouth by contrast; and if they gainsaid the voice, anger was kindled in the hearts of those under the spell. For some the spell lasted only while the voice spoke to them, and when it spoke to another they smiled, as men do who see through a juggler's trick while others gape at it. For many the sound of the voice alone was enough to hold them enthralled; but for those whom it conquered the spell endured when they were far away, and ever they heard that soft voice whispering and urging them. But none were unmoved; none rejected its pleas and its commands without an effort of mind and will, so long as its master had control of it.
|
|
|
squire
Half-elven
Dec 20 2014, 7:10pm
Post #17 of 25
(1957 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, and I apologize
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Of course you're right - and I rarely play the Hitler card myself, as well; no offense intended. What I was thinking is that the comparison of Saruman and Churchill (is one truly evil? was the other really any better?) must implicitly include their respective story and historical counterparts -- it's impossible actually to compare Saruman to Churchill.
When you did so, I assumed you were referring to what readers and critics have noted since the book was published: that Saruman's slippery speech on the steps of Isengard is a satirical comment on the appeasement and moral-equivalence debates that wracked Britain and the West during World War II and later the Cold War. Tolkien, as you may know, agreed with you in the real world. He rather disliked Churchill's dictatorial mien during the war, and reflected that, unlike in his fantasy world, both sides in a war, and their leaders, must inescapably be morally tainted by the fatal powers they wield.
Of course that's why he denied that The Lord of the Rings was an allegory for that great war. It's also why he wrote Gandalf as precisely not Saruman, by no means equivalent despite both being wizards: Gandalf, like Elrond or Aragorn and unlike Saruman, Sauron, and Boromir, is a powerful being who refuses supreme power, even to do good, because of the corruption that must inevitably befall any such leader or ruler who uses an evil means to achieve desirable ends.
squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd & 4th TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion and NOW the 1st BotR Discussion too! and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.
|
|
|
HeWhoArisesinMight
Rivendell
Dec 22 2014, 2:18am
Post #18 of 25
(1942 views)
Shortcut
|
Hi Curinir,
I like that you take an interest in Saruman, who is a major figure in the works that often gets overlooked.
However, I do disagree with one of your points. There are a lot of similarities between Saruman and Sauron (not just in their names)...
Both are very skilled craftsman, neither is a really great "leader" in the sense that people want to follow them out of their noble qualities. But they are very good managers or organizers.
They also have similar origin as disciples of Aule. Here, I think it is an important point about Sauron and Saruman. Their mentor (Aule) was the god of metal and earth. He was a the saint of craftsman. This is where both Sauron and Saruman learned.
Obviously Tolkien doesn't get into it, but I wonder how Sauron and Saruman related to one another before the awakening of the Elves. One could imagine them being friends. Saruman had much more in common with Sauron than he did with Gandalf.
That being said, there are some major differences between the two. Sauron seems to rely on his guile and ability to deceive as much as he does on his craftsmanship. In fact, it is his early ability to ask bewitch people with his charm that set him apart from Saruman.
Saruman seems to need proxies to be deceitful (Wormtongue being an example of this). Saruman at least had some interest in the "natural" world until he slowly unlike Sauron, who seems to only like the mechanical.
I would put it like this: Sauron was more like the totalitarian ruler (Stalin, Mao, Kim Jung Un) rather than the more autocratic/technocratic ruler that was Saruman (closer to the WW2 Japan).
Anyway, that's my take. I know there are some flaws in my argument as I fully haven't thought them out, but there is a great semblance between Sauron and Saruman, although they seem to have vastly different personalities. Nevertheless, they are cut from the same cloth.
|
|
|
Curunir The White
The Shire
Dec 22 2014, 10:34pm
Post #19 of 25
(1909 views)
Shortcut
|
I apologise for overlooking that - I don't know too much on Sauron, but I think Saruman does have his own charm and guile in his own right, such as was demonstrated (and spoken of at a point where it was mightier) in the Two Towers during the Voice of Saruman chapter - which is just another similarity to add to them both.
I personally think that on a level, Saruman and Sauron would get along, but neither are essentially going to let one get the better of each other, so I could see it being a constant battle of wills and neither willing to serve the other.
I won't point them out, I quite enjoy your take on it, and thank-you for helping me establish my point on Saruman a little better :)
I have another question to raise though, for those who believe Saruman to be entirely villainous - is he villainous to the point where he is irredeemable, and why (or why not)?
Those who listened unwarily to that voice could seldom report the words that they heard; and if they did, they wondered, for little power remained in them. Mostly they remembered only that it was a delight to hear the voice speaking, all that it said seemed wise and reasonable, and desire awoke in them by swift agreement to seem wise themselves. When others spoke they seemed harsh and uncouth by contrast; and if they gainsaid the voice, anger was kindled in the hearts of those under the spell. For some the spell lasted only while the voice spoke to them, and when it spoke to another they smiled, as men do who see through a juggler's trick while others gape at it. For many the sound of the voice alone was enough to hold them enthralled; but for those whom it conquered the spell endured when they were far away, and ever they heard that soft voice whispering and urging them. But none were unmoved; none rejected its pleas and its commands without an effort of mind and will, so long as its master had control of it.
|
|
|
HeWhoArisesinMight
Rivendell
Dec 22 2014, 10:47pm
Post #20 of 25
(1916 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't think Saruman was a complete "villain." He is one of the few very complex characters in Middle Earth... Denethor is another.
At any rate, I appreciate your interest in Saruman. I do think he is a quite overlooked character. I believe his initial intentions to find the ring and defeat Sauron were pure, but as with other rulers, it is not the end that corrupts them, but the means.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Dec 23 2014, 3:55am
Post #21 of 25
(1914 views)
Shortcut
|
Many of the best villains (Saruman, Ra's al Ghul, etc.) are convinced that they are in the right--or at least that what they do is necessary.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Dec 23 2014, 8:00am
Post #22 of 25
(1906 views)
Shortcut
|
Were you thinking of all the Middle-earth works,or,LOTR specifically? I was wondering which major characters in LOTR you see as simple? It seems to be that even the orcs, when we hear them talk, have their own concerns, and aren't merely the simple plot vessels that many an author would make.
This is very different in large parts of the Silmarillion, which aren't novel ized in the same way (and which, for that reason, I personally find less enjoyable, though that's a matter of taste, of course!)
~~~~~~
"nowimë I am in the West, Furincurunir to the Dwarves (or at least, to their best friend) and by other names in other lands. Mostly they just say 'Oh no it's him - look busy!' "
Or "Hold off! unhand me, grey-beard loon!"
This year LOTR turns 60. The following image is my LOTR 60th anniversary party footer! You can get yours here: http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=762154#762154
|
|
|
HeWhoArisesinMight
Rivendell
Dec 23 2014, 1:02pm
Post #23 of 25
(1911 views)
Shortcut
|
I was referring to the LOTR/Hobbit books when I said there weren't many complex characters. The Silmarillion is chock full of very complex characters: Feanor and Turin are two of the most layered characters in the entire legendarium.
The Hobbit (which I love dearly) is a children's book so there wouldn't be much complexity there. The LOTR, though the archetype for all fantasy novels today, is still very simplistic in it's format.
However, I forgot to add probably the most complex character in Hobbit/LOTR is Sméagol/Gollum... grave oversight by myself LOL. (One could make the case that Thorin and Bilbo have many layers to them in the Hobbit as well)
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Dec 23 2014, 1:48pm
Post #24 of 25
(1946 views)
Shortcut
|
I certainly see those two as "complex"!
And I agree that the Hobbit, as a children's' book initially doesn't characterize in the same way as writings for older readers. That said, Bilbo in The Hobbit ends up with a complex moral dilemma, doesn't he: it's decidedly debatable whether he is entitled to carry off the Arkenstone & give it to the besieging forces, but he does it in a wider moral cause. So maybe the characters get more complex as the book develops.
Back to the LOTR, Yes! Gollum/Smeagol - a triumph of complexity! I also see Eowyn as complex - far from a stock character. Her decision that all is lost and she will end her life as usefully as she may is something I find believable as it is tragic.
Even characters such as Butterbur have sudden points of sparkle - the man who seems to be a jolly Innkeeper out of Central Casting has to read out the address on Frodo's letter himself because he "values his reputation as a lettered man". I liked that as much as I wasn't expecting it.
Some characters are oddly characters in absentia (Sauron, Arwen) - we see mostly their effects on others, and what they represent to others. The Black Riders/Nazgul too seem to be essences of something - we're not invited to think about their motivation (though I suppose maybe the point there is that, as slaves to the Ring, they have no independent motivation -one of the things that is scary about them.)
Am I cheating if I call those special cases or outliers, do you think?
I suppose what I'm thinking of is how Tolkien differs from a lot of potboiler fantasy, in which it's "Here are the characters that are Good, and here are the characters that are Evil; now let them fight." Nobody is invited to do anything more complex than cheer on the Good Guys and boo the Bad Guys. Don't ask what makes one character Good and another Evil - they just ARE, so we can enjoy the bust-up.
That's where what I was thinking of as "complexity" comes in for me, if that makes sense?
~~~~~~
"nowimë I am in the West, Furincurunir to the Dwarves (or at least, to their best friend) and by other names in other lands. Mostly they just say 'Oh no it's him - look busy!' "
Or "Hold off! unhand me, grey-beard loon!"
This year LOTR turns 60. The following image is my LOTR 60th anniversary party footer! You can get yours here: http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=762154#762154
(This post was edited by noWizardme on Dec 23 2014, 1:54pm)
|
|
|
KingTurgon
Rohan
Apr 12 2015, 9:53pm
Post #25 of 25
(1768 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I see him as one of Tolkien's best characters
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
especially when you take the Sil into context. Saruman most likely fought for the Valar in many wars, so it is tragic to me to see how far he ends up falling - despite having noble intentions.
|
|
|
|
|
