What do we talk about when we talk about characters?

[Rimbaud]

With apologies to Bethberry for uncustomary tardiness on my part.

First, a note. Within this answer lies a study of Lord of the Rings and that as a stand-alone work. By this, I wish to state that auxilliary texts such as The Hobbit, The Silmarillion, the HoME series, Unfinished Tales and even Letters (after much deliberation, for there was much to be gleaned) are not examined or referred to. Therefore, any subsequent mention of depth refers only to the words that constitute the Rings series, not the greater picture of Tolkien’s Middle-Earth.

Saruman

Tolkien, the Archetype Devourer (borrowed [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ). Saruman is a stereotype of morally weak characterisation. He is easily tempted, his heart is swiftly darkened and he fails (until the very last sentence describing him) to exhibit any saving graces. No moral fibre, to paraphrase bad modern journalists. Spin the story around a little and some qualities emerge. He does not give up easily; even after his liege-lord had fallen and his own plans were in ruinous disarray, he continues along his plot-driven path, that of causing maximum damage to our diminutive heroes. Though petulant, his repulsive rape of the Shire is a strident note at the footnote of an otherwise unremarkable curriculum vita. However, his transformation (unseen, and therefore unknown in scope and depth to the Reader) is callously treated. Snared rather easily by the chap in Barad-Dur, one might say. He is not only morally weak but poorly drawn, as well. The scope and pacing of [I]Rings[/] - in flux though it is, usually – do not allow us to understand or sympathise with Saruman, although there are some rather machined attempts to do so near the end, particularly when the triumphant host encounters him after the War is over, as he trudges down the road with Grima Wormtongue.

(It is worth noting however, that Saruman’s addition to the story line is invaluable, since the other villain of the peace is the king of all stereotypes. Ever. Anywhere. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] )

That said, as so often with Tolkien’s work, the end improves perception of the means.

For a moment it wavered, looking to the West; but out of the West came a cold wind, and it bent away, and with a sigh dissolved into nothing.

This powerful line adds depth to Saruman, a good and oft-employed trick of Tolkien’s, implying a certain depth to the character when really there was little extant in the text. Saruman is gifted thus a “tragic virtue”, his apparent penitence or at least realisation of mistakes made, lending him a swift and almost eucatastrophic pathos. Sharkey’s previous position as Head of the White Council and his angelic nature do not count as “moral virtues” since the reader does not encounter them and anyone with half a brain knew he was rotten egg, early on.

Insofar as “tragic flaws” go, Saruman is strangely lacking. We are told that he is seduced by the power of the Dark Side and little else. There is some bitter humour in his involvement with the spring-cleaning of Mirkwood in Bilbo’s time, when paired with his subsequent position as Lieutenant Bad Guy, but it is quite insignificant. His treatment of Boba Fe…Grima Wormtongue lends him little audience sympathy. The lack of strong characterisation for Saruman, who as a fallen angel, could have been one of the most moving and powerful figures in modern ‘mythlore’ is a central weakness of the text.


More to come, after I’ve endured the rotten fruit soon to be flung.

[ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: Rimbaud ]