Saruman and betrayal

[Legolas]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

This actually speaks favorably of the orcs supply capacity because you'd have to think that they would not be generous with food to prisoners, but they gave the prisoners both bread and meat.

To be fair, these are not typical prisoners - they are the short fellows the orcs were sent to capture. Their health was a priority. They were ordered to keep them alive for Saruman; feeding them was probably done with that in mind. This order is alluded to throughout Book 3 Chapter 3 "The Uruk-Hai." The last quote is maybe the most telling.

'Very well,' said Uglúk. 'Leave them to me then! No killing, as I've told you before; but if you want to throw away what we've come all the way to get, throw it away! I'll look after it. Let the fighting Uruk-hai do the work, as usual.'

'I've returned to see that Orders are carried out and the prisoners safe,' answered Grishnákh.
'Indeed!' said Uglúk. 'Waste of effort. I'll see that orders are carried out in my command. And what else did you come back for? You went in a hurry. Did you leave anything behind?'
'I left a fool,' snarled Grishnákh. 'But there were some stout fellows with him that are too good to lose. I knew you'd lead them into a mess. I've come to help them.'

'[...] Oh dear no! What do you think you've been kept alive for? My dear little fellows, please believe me when I say that it was not out of kindness: that's not even one of Uglúk's faults.' (Grishnákh)

[The Sixth Wizard]

I think I'll go back a bit here...

But the Sauron that we read from the chapters of Akallabeth, the Rings of Power and Lord of The Rings was far from a slave creature of the senses and unbridled chaos. He was immensely cunning, devious, patience, thoughful and above all never lost sight of his ultimate aim. He was as I would submit, a master strategist of the art of maneuver

You speak of Sauron the Deciever as he is in Numenor. But Tolkien speaks at the start of the Silmarillion about the three stages of evil, rise, fall and the machine.

In terms of Morgoth, the rise is the will to make the world a place for him to govern, at first with good intentions, but nevertheless to make how he wants it. Th fall of Morgoth is when he descends into evil by decieving the Valar to have the world to himself. His Machine is where he is so obsessed with killing or corrupting the Children of Iluvatar, he expends his spirit in the twisting of good and the domination of Arda, and destroys himself from within.

In terms of Sauron, the rise (this is after he repents of his evil deeds at Angband) is when he helps to create the first Rings, and gains the friendship of the Elves. Then he creates the One Ring, and his Fall involves trying to decieve the elves and the Numenoreans. I see it that the Fall stage is still deceptive, not quite complete evil. By the time he returns to Mordor he has entered the Machine stage, openly declaring war, like Saruman openly declares war upon Rohan. So once evil has entered the Machine stage, it weakens the deception and this leads to their downfall (Saruman can no longer decieve Gandalf because of his open war).

So Sauron is no longer such a mean, lying character as he is in Akkalabeth because he is the Dark Lord. He has surrendered somewhat to the blind madness of evil, and so he is decieved at the Black Gate in his rush to destroy Aragorn, and doesn't heed the trap. Gandalf says that Sauron would never expect the Ring to go to Mordor, because he cannot percieve that Aragorn would not take the Ring for himself. Thus evil will always destroy itself by the very nature of evil.

Cool eh? And of course Gandalf would never lie, that is the beginning of the Fall!

By the way Saruman would never get away with trafficking Easterlings over from the East, way too difficult. Just use wolves to pillage everything between Isengard and the Shire instead, I'd think.

[Kuruharan]

To be fair, these are not typical prisoners - they are the short fellows the orcs were sent to capture.

True, but it still reflects favorably on their supply system.

[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 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.

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 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.

Saruman is a politician. Among the Dunlendings, Saruman stirs up and manipulates identity group politics-- the politics of resentment -- to acquire power for himself. If Rohan is Medieval Mercian Anglo-Saxon England, then the Dunlendings are the resentful Celtic fringe. Saruman uses the fringe against the sleepy smug drunken Riders of Rohan to acquire power for himself. If his plans had not been interrupted by the War of the Ring, he probably would have proposed through Wormtongue that Rohan enter into a Union of Middle Earth with the Dunlendings and the Orkish-folk of Isengard, with administrative headquarters of the Union at Isengard.

Saruman is an arrogant elitist. He despises all views of common folk and cares only for the opinion of his fellow elites. He does not kill or torture Gandalf because he still values Gandalf's opinion and still wishes first to persuade and then to convince Gandalf that Saruman's new policy is correct.

Most provocatively, Saruman is a social engineer. He is bored with and disappointed in the old, God-made races of Middle Earth, and so he sets himself the task of breeding a new, mixed race, a more durable and politically obedient hybrid, emancipated of any loyalty or identity, except to himself.

Saruman would be very comfortable as a leader of modern. multicultural European Socialism and American liberalism.

[Nerwen]

Hmmn... well, most of the lefty-types I know aren't at all keen on science and progress in general and genetic engineering (which I guess is the real world equivalent of what Saruman did) in particular. If you want to see a bunch of people who are deeply suspicious of science and want to return to an idealised past– look no further.

[skip spence]

Wow, there's so much I object to there I don't know where to begin. And I don't have time to write much now either. But can you elaborate on just how Sauruman is similar to a european left-wing politician or to an american liberal? Lets say Tony Blair or Barak Obama.

from 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.

Say what now?! Are you equating the gay movement with socialism?
And was Sauruman queer?

[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. Ron and Nancy? Arnie and Shriver? Bill and Hillary? umm, no, I don't think so. In having their authority limited or proscribed Tom and Goldberry are more like a constitutional monarchy, say Chuck and Camilla. So, ultimately, I don't think the analogy works.

[Groin Redbeard]

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.

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.

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.

Well, Saruman wanted to rule the earth and have the Ring for himself. I'm not sure that he was thinking so much about apeasing Sauron, as much as he was thinking about how he could defeat or stall Sauorn long enough for him to get the Ring.

Saruman broke his pledge when he started destroying Fangorn, so already he is sacrificing the things that he swore to protect.

Originally Posted by Animalmother

Saruman is a politician. Among the Dunlendings, Saruman stirs up and manipulates identity group politics-- the politics of resentment -- to acquire power for himself. If Rohan is Medieval Mercian Anglo-Saxon England, then the Dunlendings are the resentful Celtic fringe. Saruman uses the fringe against the sleepy smug drunken Riders of Rohan to acquire power for himself. If his plans had not been interrupted by the War of the Ring, he probably would have proposed through Wormtongue that Rohan enter into a Union of Middle Earth with the Dunlendings and the Orkish-folk of Isengard, with administrative headquarters of the Union at Isengard.

That's almost certainly what he would have done. Sauron had an idea just like that with the Mouth of Sauron serving as his lieutenant in Isengard.

[davem]

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.

Plus the fact that modern day liberals eat babies - just like Saruman is described as doing in an early draft of LotR.

[Groin Redbeard]

I don't know if that was sarcasm or sincerity, Davem.

[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.

[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.