Saruman and betrayal

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Animalmother

Saruman's rhetoric and actions are those of a modern leftist progressive politician. As such, Saruman connects with us moderns. Gandalf, who is a defender of tradition with a rigid view of absolute good and evil in politics, does not.,

Saruman a leftist? Nah, if anything he's fascistic and a petty dictator subservient to a greater power (a la Mussolini to Hitler), but that is all academic, really. It's nice to conjecture about placing modernistic terminology on a major antagonist like Saruman in LotR, but you must first look to Tolkien's direct statement regarding Saruman's character:

from the Foreword to Fellowship of the Ring:
...the character of Saruman as developed in the story without, need I say, any allegorical significance or contemporary political reference whatsoever,

Originally Posted by Animalmother

Saruman is a politician-Wizard of the Left, who has presciently adopted as his own symbol a symbol of the modern Left, the rainbow of many colors. Gandalf, like his fellow Elven Ring bearers, is a reactionary who wants to defend and to keep all things exactly as they are.

You misunderstood the meaning of Saruman's cloak of many colors. He was Saruman the White, but through corruption has fragmented white light into a prismic collage that is all colors and none at all. He has fallen from the standard (which later would be assumed by Gandalf the White after his death and purgation). Later in the tale when Gandalf meets Saruman, it is Gandalf who is radiant and Saruman who is cloaked in dirty gray. And I would not necessarily term Gandalf and the Elves 'reactionaries'; they are conservatives in the truest sense of the word.

Originally Posted by Animalmother

Saruman is a modernizer. He has lost patience with the laissez faire, consensus driven policy of his fellow Istari, and, seeing the need for rapid change, would concentrate power in himself as Chief Executive of the Free People.

Saruman is certainly modernistic in his compulsion towards technology (total war, propaganda, explosives, etc.), but it is not due to policies of politics, but rather of power. The Ring has ensnared him and he desperately seeks it in an effort to displace Sauron as the Great Dark Lord of Middle-earth. You are reading a philosophy into the text which is not warranted and is expressly denied by the author.

Originally Posted by Animalmother

Saruman is a mediator. He believes that an accommodation can be reached with Sauron that will satisfy Sauron's will to power, without sacrificing everything Saruman has sworn to protect.

Nonsense. Sauron is a manipulator and a traitor to both the Free People and Sauron. He played both sides against the other and lied to both in order to take the Ring.

I could reply at length to each of your statements, but I haven't the time currently. Needless to say, I think you might want to read further regarding the author's intent, rather than reading your own philosophy into a story that is implicity not in accord with modern politics.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

You know, if only I could figure out where Tom and Goldberry fall in this, it might provide some proper applicability, because Tom and Goldberry also have powerful voices, albeit in a different tone.

Beth, in Animalmother's lexicon Tom and Goldberry are ageing, nihilistic hippies waiting for the next Grateful Dead tour (which is why they are camped out near the Barrow Downs -- not to mention Tom's penchant for outlandish color combinations).

[Nerwen]

As I said in another thread, it is a mistake to think that you can divide the world into two camps of "left-wing-progressive-pro-science" and "right-wing-conservative-anti-science". It's just not that simple. People can be "progressive" in one area and "conservative" in another.

Also, Animalmother, how is this book supposed to be "about" present-day European socialists? From your phrasing you make it sound as if you think it's a sort of allegory about modern-day politics. You say,

Saruman is a politician-Wizard of the Left, who has presciently adopted as his own symbol a symbol of the modern Left, the rainbow of many colors.

Now, what you mean can't really be that Saruman is prescient, but that the author was. Well and good– except that such detailed predictions of future political developments (that's assuming your description is accurate, which I dispute) are in the realm of psychic powers.

[Animalmother]

Hickory, the Straw Man in L. Frank Baum's allegory, "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz," is crying "ouch" as Animalmother's respondent's beat him.

When quoting the Master's Foreword to LOTR on allegory, it's best to quote him in complete sentences:

"But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew 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 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."

So, you have your freedom to read and to apply LOTR to your thought and experience, and I have mine. I have never argued that LOTR is allegory. I simply noticed that there are some striking similarities between Saruman's mind and the minds of modern leftists, viz.: pride, conceit, arrogance, fondnesses for moral relativism, for intellectual complexity, for political mediation, and for bamboozling the boobish masses with rhetoric; a dislike of moral absolutes, an itch to change long conserved social and biological groups such as nations and races, an itch to take political power from traditional nations and communities and to consolidate it in the hands of technocrats and experts, and a fascination with the kinds of mass production and heavy industry which can be easily controlled by government.

Since LOTR is fantasy history, not allegory, most experiences and characters (e.g., Tom Bombadil and Goldberry) will not resonate with contemporary political experiences and characters. But neither can one dogmatically assert that, in such a vast fantasy history as LOTR, no experience or character will ever resonate with our own political contemporaries. For this reader, the parallels between Saruman and modern multiculty Western European leftists and American liberals are too striking and too numerous to overlook.

A few minor notes:

1) Saruman's rejection of white for refracted colored light symbolizes his adoption of a new aggressive philosophy and his rejection of the ways of the gentle conservative, Gandalf. I could not resist observing that the rainbow, a kind of refracted light, is also the symbol of American leftist movements (gays; Rainbow/Push Coalition) which now attack our own, traditional Western ways.

2) The National Socialists and Fascists were leftists and also owned most of Saruman's characteristics listed above. That the Marxist left (the great majority of leftists) denounced them as "right wing" means nothing. Leftists usually denounce all opponents as "right wing." What else can they do?

3) Finally, the Left does not approve of baby eating, because babies are non-vegan, but at least in my country (Texas) the Left stoutly defends fetus killing.

[Animalmother]

Correction to above post: "Hunk," not Hickory, was the name of the hand on little Dorothy's farm. He is transformed in her dream into the Scarecrow in "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz."

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Animalmother

But neither can one dogmatically assert that, in such a vast fantasy history as LOTR, no experience or character will ever resonate with our own political contemporaries.

Did anyone say it wouldn't? One must be careful, in accusing others of "straw man" tactics, that one is not using them oneself.

I'm afraid that to me, you do seem to be going far beyond questions of resonance and claiming a detailed level of "applicability" which I maintain would have required the author to be be literally prescient, that is, psychic.

As for your "minor notes"– I refer you to my previous comments about leftists, which you have completely ignored. You are lumping everyone and everything together. Frankly, it's offensive.

Can I ask you to be more moderate in your future remarks, Animalmother? Please remember that there are many people on this forum who don't share the same politics as you.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Animalmother

When quoting the Master's Foreword to LOTR on allegory, it's best to quote him in complete sentences...

The particular tidbit I offered about Saruman went beyond Tolkien's statement regarding allegory; in fact, Tolkien is much more explicit, in that he referred to Saruman as being without any 'contemporary political reference whatsoever'; therefore, it seemed apparent to me that there was no need to expound on allegory or symbology (and the encumbent need to type great swathes of text). In future, I will include a pdf file for your edification.

Originally Posted by Animalmother

So, you have your freedom to read and to apply LOTR to your thought and experience, and I have mine.

*shrugs*

You may call the Lord of the Rings an allusive meditation on Mein Kampf, or Saruman's activity as a prescient precursor to Mao's Great Leap Forward if you'd like. It does not make it applicable.

Originally Posted by Animalmother

I have never argued that LOTR is allegory. I simply noticed that there are some striking similarities between Saruman's mind and the minds of modern leftists, viz.: pride, conceit, arrogance, fondnesses for moral relativism, for intellectual complexity, for political mediation, and for bamboozling the boobish masses with rhetoric; a dislike of moral absolutes, an itch to change long conserved social and biological groups such as nations and races, an itch to take political power from traditional nations and communities and to consolidate it in the hands of technocrats and experts, and a fascination with the kinds of mass production and heavy industry which can be easily controlled by government.

Actually, you could be well describing Napoleon, or Stalin and Hitler moreso. Your conglomeration of various attributes does not fit those whom you label 'modern leftists'; in fact, you've got smatterings of a wide range of political agendas that you are trying to force into your own agenda, as well as stretching Saruman's character in a manner which the author did not intend, nor does the text support.

Again, particularly with your view that Saruman was a political mediator, the text does not bear that at all. He was not making accommodations between both sides (as if any entente or rapprochment could ever be gained), he was playing one off against the other, he was delaying, he was lying in order to get the One Ring. This multiplicity was not known, and the consequences of his actions damaged his credibility with both sides (Had Sauron won the war, it was clear that Saruman would not be sharing in the prize -- not after Saruman lied to the Nazgul).

Originally Posted by Animalmother

Since LOTR is fantasy history, not allegory, most experiences and characters (e.g., Tom Bombadil and Goldberry) will not resonate with contemporary political experiences and characters. But neither can one dogmatically assert that, in such a vast fantasy history as LOTR, no experience or character will ever resonate with our own political contemporaries. For this reader, the parallels between Saruman and modern multiculty Western European leftists and American liberals are too striking and too numerous to overlook.

There are parallels in LotR that resonate throughout history, and there are absolutes in Middle-earth that preclude comparison to real history. It seems to me you are reading far too much of your own personal agenda into Saruman, and the text does not warrant such overt comparison (like Saruman's many-colored cloak as a very trivial, wholly ludicrous example).

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Beth, in Animalmother's lexicon Tom and Goldberry are ageing, nihilistic hippies waiting for the next Grateful Dead tour (which is why they are camped out near the Barrow Downs -- not to mention Tom's penchant for outlandish color combinations).

Well, I had been aiming more for an applicability which would by its very antithesis suggest something about the analogy of Saruman to leftists. However, your comment about Tom and Goldberry as aging Deadheads is the funniest thing I've read today. It sent me out immediately to search for some possible sitings of the elusive Bombadil couple at concerts but look what I found instead:

Ann Coulter Outed as a Deadhead

Apparently she never inhaled at concerts.

And now I'm away to rep davem for his baby-eating post. It would take a new dad to post something like that.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Ann Coulter Outed as a Deadhead

Apparently she never inhaled at concerts.

I don't believe Ann Coulter has ever inhaled. Or exhaled.

[Groin Redbeard]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I don't believe Ann Coulter has ever inhaled. Or exhaled.

Ahh... the voice of experience. I say that we should end this discussion before things get really nasty. Already people seem to be going out of the box to hurt one another.

EDIT: Or at least chang the subject off of the political spectrum.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

Already people seem to be going out of the box to hurt one another.

I'm not sure we're on the same thread here. Where exactly is this happening?*

*No neo-ultra-conservative talking-head dead-heads named Ann Coulter were injured in the making of these posts. We were sure to use holograms of the subject and we received permission from the Republican Party, the NRA, Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh prior to submission.

P.S. Groin, I find it interesting that you will go out of your way to give a good rep to someone who denigrates liberals and basically labels them as great Satans, such as your post here...

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

This point alone is worthy of a rep., you have really captured the way that modern day liberals seek to apease everyone by claiming that they are for everyone, just like Saruman.

...but if someone pokes fun at one of your ideologists, they receive a bad rep and you claim things have gotten nasty and 'people seem to be going out of the box to hurt one another'. The windows in your glass house are rather smudged, my friend, perhaps you should spend some time spring cleaning. To be honest, I am rather taken aback by your hypocrisy.

[Groin Redbeard]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I'm not sure we're on the same thread here. Where exactly is this happening?*

Instead of going after the ideas, everyone seems content with going after the people themselves.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

P.S. Groin, I find it interesting that you will go out of your way to give a good rep to someone who denigrates liberals and basically labels them as great Satans, such as your post here...

In my defense, I saw Animalmother's point very accurate and I approved it. However, you will note that that was early in the debate, before everything got heated, and I have stayed out of it, listening, every since.

Great Satan is not a word to joke about! I have found no text from Animalmother, or anyone else, that mentions the words Satan, devil, or anything else that resembles the great Satan. You are taking things to the extreme and have no proof whatsoever. This is what I mean, this subject has gotten so heated that you are beginning the think with your heart instead of your head.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

...but if someone pokes fun at one of your ideologists, they receive a bad rep and you claim things have gotten nasty and 'people seem to be going out of the box to hurt one another'. The windows in your glass house are rather smudged, my friend, perhaps you should spend some time spring cleaning. To be honest, I am rather taken aback by your hypocrisy.

I disapproved of your post and so I gave you a negative rep., I did not insult you in it in anyway, I did not insult your beliefs. If you want to give me a negative rep. for what I'm saying now that's OK by me, that's why I wrote my name at the end so you knew who it was coming from.

Hypocrisy, what hypocrisy? I told you how I felt in the previous post and when you still didn't listen I disapproved,and I let you know as such. I did not "hurt" you with foul language or take the time to look up an article that slanders a particular political leader (sound familier). How is disapproving of your antics hurting you?

Thank you,
G.R.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

*chimes in*

What was the original topic of the thread? Ah yes.

It is a good point that Saruman can be looked upon as a manipulating politician. That's really a thing I am sure everybody can agree with. However, I tend to look at Animalmother's view as rather simplified, if anything else. Yes, Saruman can be seen as a nice archetype of a corrupt, people-manipulating politician with all sorts of traits you named. But why leftist, necessarily? He can be ANY politician who uses rhetorics and manipulates others for his own cause, (ev. not actually caring about what he is preaching) - and such politicians exist, and in both camps. He can be a politician building his career on saying "I am bringing you a change!" or "Don't worry, I will see to it that the old values are not disrupted!" I am sure Saruman would be capable of doing both, depending on the situation when it would suit him (many-coloured robes! "I will be red, or blue, or green, whatever is currently needed"). Remember his double-dealing with both Sauron and the Free Peoples (the thing about old values is exactly what he has been saying to Théoden, or actually even Gandalf). So here you go - neither red nor green nor blue nor yellow, but a chameleon. That is Saruman of Many Colours.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

Hypocrisy, what hypocrisy? I told you how I felt in the previous post and when you still didn't listen I disapproved,and I let you know as such. I did not "hurt" you with foul language or take the time to look up an article that slanders a particular political leader (sound familier). How is disapproving of your antics hurting you?G.R.

I merely said Ann Coulter 'never inhaled or exhaled' (I was not the one to look up the article about her fondness for the Grateful Dead, that was Bêthberry). How exactly (and by any stretch of the imagination) is that slander? Actually, in written form it would be libel, but that is beside the point. I then went on to point out that 'no neo-ultra-conservative talking-head dead-heads named Ann Coulter were injured in the making of these posts'. Let's see, is Ann Coulter a neo-ultra-conservative? Yes, I believe she may give herself that descriptor. Is she a talking-head? Yes, that is a description for every commentator on TV, no matter their political persuasion. Is she a dead-head? Yes, by her own admission (if you were unaware, a dead-head is an ardent follower of the Grateful Dead).

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

Great Satan is not a word to joke about! I have found no text from Animalmother, or anyone else, that mentions the words Satan, devil, or anything else that resembles the great Satan. You are taking things to the extreme and have no proof whatsoever. This is what I mean, this subject has gotten so heated that you are beginning the think with your heart instead of your head.

Hmmm...I am taking things to an extreme? I think not. The term 'Great Satan' is actually levelled at Western politicians (particularly the U.S. government) quite often by commentators in the Muslim world. You seemed enchanted and agreed with Animalmother's anathemization of liberal politicians (which, in essence, equated Hitlerian rhetoric and social engineering with current, as he called them, leftist-liberals). You may exchange 'Great Satan' for 'Eternal Judas' if you like (that is perhaps more apt for Saruman in any case).

You are evidently incapable of discerning the difference between a pun about an individual with the systematic attack on an entire belief system; therefore, any further attempts to discuss the matter would be futile.

Sorry for the digression, but I will not comment on this thread any longer.