[doug*platypus]

Garden of the Octothread

8 questions in one? Can you do that??

Just for starters...

1. Yes, Saruman is a strong character with weak moral fibre, and was probably an excellent source of inspiration for Cherryh's thoughts on character. Indeed, Tolkien draws excellent characters, but I'm sure most people (myself included) only start to realise this on the third reading or so, once the events have been assimilated into their heads. I don't believe there is any element of the tragic in Saruman (although I'm sure Gandalf would disagree, especially having come from a similar background). I feel pity for the wretch that Saruman became (jsut as Frodo pitied him, and showed him mercy), but I cannot feel any sympathy for him, because his fall from grace came from his own pride and greed, and not like Gollum from some dominant outside force.

2. By weasels it looks like you mean people who go unpunished for their sins. In which case there are none. Even Bill Ferny is punished for his wickedness, but only in just proportion to it. Had Merry run him through and Sam thrown his body into the ditch, it would not have been just. Bill got what he deserved (eviction and a kick up the bum), since his deeds were not as evil as those of Saruman or of Wormtongue (both of whom get exactly what they deserved, as does Sauron). No evil character goes unpunished, but also none is punished more than they deserve. In the Lord of the Rings, Eru sees justice done, at least on that side of the coin (Frodo, Hama, Forlong are examples on the other side whose ends were perhaps unfair).

3. It is difficult to name foils in LOTR, much more than in almost any other work of fiction. Tolkien's pedantry ensured that everyone had a story and a history, at least. Gimli and Legolas are the least complete characters, but I am not sure in what way they may work as foils, unless to each other to show the bond of friendship that shared hardships may bring. A little thinking brings the name Frodo to my mind, as foil to Sam. Frodo's own (inner) journey would have stood on its own, but for Sam to become a more responsible hobbit he needed the love of his master as his guiding light. Sam eventually takes over as the main character of the narrative (and the Master of Bag End), and as the New Bilbo his role in the book as the everyman is at least as important as Frodo's (though not as central to the actual quest).

4. I assume by vulnerable that you mean not in the physical sense (otherwise the answers are numerous and obvious). onewhitetree makes an excellent example of Éowyn, who like Denethor was dangerously vulnerable to despair and eventually suicide. Of course the possible suicide of Éowyn is a far more horrible thought than that of nasty, old Denethor. But poor Faramir! Daddy kills himself, and then wifey later reveals she has had a history of suicidal tendencies and depression, as well. Too much like the shocking realities of our own world, and a little unnerving to delve into. Sméagol is of course the other vulnerable character, who like Denethor succumbs in the end, in his case not to despair but to the lure of the Ring. Frodo could not save his life, but at least he managed to save the quest, and Gollum did not die in vain. Gandalf, Aragorn, Elrond and Galadriel may have been open to temptation, but they were hardly very vulnerable, having all decided years previously that they would not take the Ring. They were all of sufficient strength to pass the test. So was Faramir, but his brother was not, and is another example of vulnerability, which seems a good way to arouse sympathy for a character.

5. All the characters seem to have traits that are either useful or detrimental to their cause. Frodo is strong but only mortal, Sam is undaunting but not as ready to pity, Aragorn is a great leader but prone to indecision or unconfidence. Even Gandalf seems weary at times. That is the beauty of Tolkien's characters - nothing comes easy for them. A possible exception is Elrond, who at first glance seems to be Mr Perfect, although being an Elf (like Gildor) he could not persuade Isildur to destroy the One Ring when he first had the chance. Probably not the best time to say both "yes" and "no".

6. I think that the proportion of weakness and strength does vary noticeably, and that it is dependent on the role of the character. Actually, in the case of Frodo and Sam it is dependent on their place in the narrative, too - Bethberry, you already knew this!! The trip to Mordor is exactly the kind of place where a character's weaknesses will come out, and be judged against their strengths. If Elrond and Glorfindel were attempting the quest rather than Frodo and Sam, the result would be less rewarding for the reader, and the chief peril would no doubt have been how stinky the orcs were, and what an unpleasant two weeks that was. Gandalf, as the representative of Eru and the person who is supposed to know what is going on, cannot afford more than a little weakness. At the Black Gate we see him truly despair for a few moments, and frankly it scares buggery out of me. If we didn't already know that Sam and Frodo had escaped, this would be a great and terrible moment in the book (it still is, though). There is a similar contrast between Gollum and Saruman. As has been pointed out, if the narrative followed Saruman more closely we could have felt more sympathy towards him. But I think that Gollum deserves it more, as I outlined in my answer to 1.

7. Sympathy for the heroes is generated by showing firstly the dire circumstances that they are in, and secondly the fact that they are 'only human' and have inherent weaknesses. Aragorn is not immune to tiredness, and Gandalf is subject to fear, as we all are. Disregarding animalistic villains such as Shelob or the Balrogs, Sauron I think is the only evil being that we cannot feel either sympathy or pity for. Even Morgoth had a great capacity for good in the beginning. It is possible to feel sympathy for Gollum and pity for Saruman, and possibly in some way for Wormtongue, as being nothing more than a sinful man, a criminal, who sinks much lower than he needed to, under the command of a tyrant.

8. Character-driven, without question. Tolkien himself stated in Letters that the use of a journey or quest was simply one device that could have been employed to tell the story. The characters weren't there to facilitate the events - quite the opposite. He also stated in reference to the Animated Version that if either Helm's Deep or The Cleansing of Isengard (not only its destruction by the Ents, but mainly Saruman's "excommunication") had to be cut, it should be the battle at Helm's Deep.