Who, in The Lord of the Rings, was the most effective liar?

[Bêthberry]

Ah, I see that a name is omitted from this list. Surely the most effective liar in Lord of the Rings is the author himself, given the vigor of his imagination and the power of his conception to lead people to want to believe in Middle-earth, if not engage in actual belief itself that this is a story of our world's early ages.

And if the power of the tale itself is not evidence enough, consider his own statements. Look at his claim in the Prologue that hobbits "are an unobstrusive but very ancient people, more numerous formerly than they are today--now there's the very kind of falsehood the author engages in blatently stated--and the present tense continues in the subseqent paragraphs, leading to such statements as imply the existence of Dwarves (the race, not simply small humans) and indeed the author even makes the very claim that "Hobbits are relatives of ours". And one more example of the kind of lies our author makes which forms the very basis of the effectiveness of his fantastic art:

Originally Posted by The author himself

Those days, the Third Age of Middle-earth, are now long past, and the shape of all lands has been changed; but the regions in which Hobbits then lived were doubtless the same as those in which they still linger: the North-West of the Old World, east of the Sea.

And then there's that self-made confession in the Foreward to the Second Edition: "I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability. . .".

It cannot be said our author affirmeth nothing when he affirms that these are tales of the early years of our world. And who of us when reading are not convinced of these words, not merely suspending our disbelief but actually persuaded of the world? Indeed, the Author even went to some effort in a long essay to elucidate the nature of his persuasive art: developing desirability. There can be no fuller confession of the nature of the effectivenses of his authorial method than this.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Ah, I see that a name is omitted from this list. Surely the most effective liar in Lord of the Rings is the author himself,

Clever, and your point is well taken; however, the question is asked of those "IN" LotR whereas the author stands outside it. So it is not, technically, an omission.

As for "too early", Raynor and others, it's an open debate as to what status the Appendices have by way of "IN LotR", as the question was stated. So I'll allow the appendices as part of LotR for the purposes of this discussion.

Effectiveness must take into account who gets misled and who doesn't. Wormtongue misleads the Rohirrim but not Gandalf. Saruman misleads Radagast & many of the Rohirrim but not Eomer and not Gandalf. And so on.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Saruman misleads Radagast & many of the Rohirrim but not Eomer and not Gandalf.

I disagree; Gandalf was misled all the way up to the day he was imprisoned.

As for "too early", Raynor and others, it's an open debate as to what status the Appendices have by way of "IN LotR", as the question was stated. So I'll allow the appendices as part of LotR for the purposes of this discussion.

Then, as said previously, we must include Melkor in the poll. He too is mentioned in the appendices, and, passingly, in the story itself. In fact, it may be said that all the other baddies owe a great deal to him, in terms of the effectiveness of their lying:

Originally Posted by Of the Voyage of Earendil and the War of Wrath, Silmarillion

Yet the lies that Melkor, the mighty and accursed, Morgoth Bauglir, the Power of Terror and of Hate, sowed in the hearts of Elves and Men are a seed that does not die and cannot be destroyed; and ever and anon it sprouts anew, and will bear dark fruit even unto the latest days.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Ah, I see that a name is omitted from this list. Surely the most effective liar in Lord of the Rings is the author himself.

Strange, Bethberry, but when I first read the question, this was also the first thought that leapt to my mind.

Clever, and your point is well taken; however, the question is asked of those "IN" LotR whereas the author stands outside it. So it is not, technically, an omission.

Littlemanpoet,

On one level, what you are saying is obviously correct. But there is another way to view things. By the rules set up by JRRT, the writer(s) of the Redbook implicitly lie within the story. Moreover, you have several overall narrators of the Legendarium, who were introduced earlier at different points. These historical/mythical narrators technically fall within Middle-earth. In effect, there is a widening circle of narrators, who have one or more feet inside the tale. At what point, do these concentric rings stop? At what point does history become myth (and vice versa)? Does that circle extend far enough to take in Tolkien and, in effect, make him the biggest and most effective liar of all?

On the other hand, if you look at some of the language of certain Letters, Tolkien did feel that he was writing something that already existed as truth on some level. He was not lying or inventing. He was telling the truth about something that he was fortunate enough to be able to get a glimse of. That may be why his story rings so true to those of us who aren't so fortunate to possess that ability to "see" things on that level.

This wasn't what the original question you raised. But on some level, it's fascinating to ask how the author stands in relation to truth and not truth. Either he is an enormously effective liar or the conveyor of some fundamental truths that the rest of us can't see as well as he did.

On a practical basis, however, my vote goes to Sauron.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

This wasn't what the original question you raised. But on some level, it's fascinating to ask how the author stands in relation to truth and not truth. Either he is an enormously effective liar or the conveyor of some fundamental truths that the rest of us can't see as well as he did.

Well, there is no better time to post this conversation between Tolkien and Lewis:

Originally Posted by "He has been inside his language, Part Four, JRR Tolkien: A Biograph, by Humphrey Carpenter

- But, said Lewis, myths are lies, even though lies breathed through silver.

- No, said Tolkien, they are not.

And, indicating the great trees of Magdalen Grove as their branches bent in the wind, he struck out a different line of argument.

- You call a tree a tree, he said, and you think nothing more of the word. But it was not a ‘tree’ until someone gave it that name. You call a star a star, and say it is just a ball of matter moving on a mathematical course. But that is merely how you see it. By so naming things and describing them you are only inventing your own terms about them. And just as speech is invention about objects and ideas, so myth is invention about truth.

We have come from God (continued Tolkien), and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, will also reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Indeed only by myth-making, only by becoming a ‘sub-creator’ and inventing stories, can Man aspire to the state of perfection that he knew before the Fall. Our myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily towards the true harbour, while materialistic ‘progress’ leads only to a yawning abyss and the Iron Crown of the power of evil.

I find this view of myths/myths making as one of Tolkien's most profound ideas... and one of the main reasons I like his work so much

[Boromir88]

Well, from the way this thread has been set up by lmp (and I guess it was intentional ) is that there is no "correct" answer. All of them really are good choices. In fact, I think the list should be expanded...what about Gandalf and/or Aragorn who were great deceivers themselves! Making Sauron believe they were going to use the Ring to overthrow him, but instead sneak in 2 little hobbits to destroy it. Talk about deception!

Anyway as far as my vote for Saruman. To add onto some of the points...sure you can question parts of Tolkien's letters. But the specific part, from Letter 210, Raynor uses I think fits perfectly in line with LOTR.

Saruman's voice was not hypnotic but persuasive. Those who listened to him were not in danger of falling into a trance, but of agreeing with his arguments, while fully awake. It was always open to one to reject, by free will and reason, both his voice while speaking and its after-impressions. Saruman corrupted the reasoning powers.

If we look at Saruman being able to completely fool Radagast and have Gandalf 'blinded' up until Saruman imprisons him; that is quite impressive. Sure, it's mentioned Gandalf was having some wariness as far as what Saruman was up to, but it's clear Gandalf still trusted Saruman up until his imprisonment:

"At first I feared, as Saruman no doubt intended, that Radagast had also fallen. Yet I had caught no hint of anything wrong in his voice or in his eye at our meeting. If I had, I should never have gone to Isengard, or I should have gone more warily. So Saruman guessed, and he had concealed his mind and deceived his messenger."~The Council of Elrond

Saruman is such an effective liar he completely deceives Radagast, which leads Gandalf to Isengard completely unaware that Saruman is a traitor. As Gandalf says himself, when first hearing Saruman wanted to have a little chat:

"And that message brought me hope. For Saruman the White is the greatest of my order."~ibid

And the thing is, it's not only two co-workers Saruman tricks, it's virtually everyone, as everyone was surprised by Saruman's betrayal...

The 'wisest' of the Elves:

There was a silence. At last Elrond spoke again. "This is grievous news concerning Saruman." he said; "for we trusted him and he is deep in all our counsels..."~ibid

Men of Gondor and Rohan:

In this way Saruman began to behave as a lord of Men; for at first he held Isengard as a lieutenant to the Steward and warden of the tower. But Frealaf was as glad as Beren to have this so, and to know that Isengard was in the hands of a strong friend. A friend he long seemed, and maybe in the beginning he was one in truth. Though afterwards there was little doubt in men's minds that Saruman went to Isengard in hope to find the Stone still there, and with the purpose of building up a power of his own. Certainly after the last White Council (2953) his designs towards Rohan, though he hid them, were evil.~Appendix A: The House of Eorl

From this we see Saruman is able to fool mostly all the "good" people up until Gandalf tells the Council of his imprisonment. It wasn't until afterwards when everyone realized Saruman had been deceiving them all and hiding his true intent. Afterall he had Rohan's trust, and Denethor had been counseling his father to listen to Saruman. But, can't put it any better than Gandalf's words to the Council of Elrond:

"Gandalf the grey caught like a fly in a spider's treacherous web! Yet even the most subtle spiders may leave a weak thread."

Saruman revealed his "true" mind to Gandalf, in hopes of persuading him, this backfired and Saruman's intentions became known. But, up until that point, boy what a 'treacherous web' Saruman did weave. Can you imagine how long he could have kept up his web of deceits had Gandalf not escaped?

Getting back to Letter 210 and Saruman 'corrupting the reasoning abilities', I wanted to point out this interesting part from The Voice of Saruman. First, let me add at this time Saruman's power was in a decline:

"But I fear your voice has lost its charm."~Theoden

I can go on and pull out all these various quotes where it shows Saruman holding the Men of Rohan under his 'sway' but the one section which I think truly highlights Tolkien's point in Letter 210 is here:

So great was the power that Saruman exerted in this last effort that none that stood within hearing were unmoved. But now the spell was wholly different. They heard the gentle remonstrance of a kindly king with an erring but much-loved minister. But they were shut out, listening at a door overhearing athe elusive discourse of their elders, and wondering how it would afferct their lot. Of loftier mould these two were made: reverend and wise. It was inevitable that they should make alliance. Gandalf would ascend into the tower, to discuss deep things beyond their comprehension in the high chambers of Orthanc. The door would be closed, and they would be left outside, dismissed to await allotted work or punishment. Even in the mind of Theoden the thought took shape, like a shadow of doubt: 'He will betray use; he will go - we shall be lost.'~The Voice of Saruman

Saruman's power is waning, yet his last effort was so effective he was able to weave a seed of doubt into everyone who could hear him. Theoden just got done telling Saruman to buzz off and he even had a thought that Gandalf would ally with Saruman!

I like morm's point about Grima, and considered him, since he is a Man. But, what made me ultimately chose Saruman was the fact that Grima was Saruman's pawn.

[Nogrod]

I must say I really approved of Bêthberry's point on Tolkien being the master deceiver in the first place - as well as Boro's points about Gandalf being a master as well.

But if we need to choose between the choices given to us by lmp I'd still say that the real choice is between Sauron and Wormtongue - even if I do appreciate now more some of the arguments made in favour of Saruman.

But in the end this sure is a question of a larger scale interpretation which is always open to doubt.

But let me just ask you "the defenders of Saruman" how on earth do you come to an outcome where Saruman is the most effective liar if he himself is completely fooled by Sauron?

Saruman thinks he has a chance to world domination and Sauron feeds his dreams to make him an auxiliary in his own war against the free races promising him might - and letting him believe he can be the master of his own destiny. Surely Saruman would have been disposable as soon as the time would have been ripe for it. But it was advantageous for Sauron to let Saruman to believe he was an independent player on the map who could have his own moves. So he was lured to be a pawn of Sauron. Now that I would call effective lying.

Yes Saruman was a maia but so was Sauron - and Gandalf. But who of them was the most powerful? It would be hard to see that even Gandalf in his post-death might would have dared to confront Sauron. He did fool Sauron with his plan of the two hobbits entering Mordor to destroy the ring but unfortunately Gandalf was not among the choices we had.

And btw. it's not very fruitful to discuss whether Saruman could have destroyed a whole island of the greatest civilisation on the the Middle-Earth like Sauron did by lying as he didn't do it. The question of the most effective liar handles things that happened, not what someone could have done...

Also I think Raynor is right in asking whether things before the LotR are to be taken into account as lmp's original question concerned the LotR.

I myself took account of things not in the LotR and thence admit having spoken of wrong things.

But still I'd say it's Sauron (I voted him indeed) or then Wormtongue if we think of the handicap he had in power...

[Groin Redbeard]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

If we look at Saruman being able to completely fool Radagast and have Gandalf 'blinded' up until Saruman imprisons him; that is quite impressive. Sure, it's mentioned Gandalf was having some wariness as far as what Saruman was up to, but its clear Gandalf still trusted Saruman up until his imprisonment.

And why is this a great accomplishment? Gandalf had no reason to believe that Saruman had joined forces with Sauron, so he obviously believed Saruman wanted to talk with him, which Saruman did.

It was not Sauron who physically destroyed Numenor. As for its moral decay, it began even before him.

That's right, but he was a key figure that played a significant role in the island's downfall.


What I've been trying to point out was that even though Grima and Saruman are both effective liars, but both failed to gain anything by it.

-Gandalf didn't join Saruman when he was given the choice, and escaped even when Saruman imprisoned him.

-Saruman and Grima had temporary hold over Théoden, but even that proved to be of little consequence.

-Even though Saruman lied to the Witch King it's still debatable whether the Nazgul knew he was lying or not. They just didn't stay around to argue with him.

Sauron's achievements are far greater then that of Saruman's or Grima's. I'll just stick with the facts and not his debatable achievements.

-Sauron effectively lied to the Elven smiths to create the great rings.

-Sauron fooled all the leaders of Middle Earth to take the rings. These people are supposed to be the leaders of each race!

-Even though he didn't ensnare all the leaders, as he had wished, Sauron still gained the service of the nine great kings of men, to become his greatest servants.

-Sauron also fooled Aragorn into believing that Arwen was dead.
Why do you think he is called Sauron the deceiver?

This is only my opinion
What about the Mouth of Sauron? It is my belief that Sauron could speak through this person, and it is plain to see that the Mouth of Sauron fooled all but Aragorn at the Black Gate.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Saruman thinks he has a chance to world domination and Sauron feeds his dreams to make him an auxiliary in his own war against the free races promising him might - and letting him believe he can be the master of his own destiny.

I don't think that Sauron fed his dreams through lies. In fact, as UT tells us, he was furious to find out about Saruman lying and misleading his servants, but he had to bid his time. I don't know that Sauron promised Saruman any might; but even if he did, it didn't matter because Saruman still didn't believe him - which is what concerns this thread: the Jack-of-all-trades still planned and tried to usurp and replace Sauron and he still mislead his servants. Thus, Sauron's lies were ineffectual, since what he accomplished through them, if he did use them, was to have a snake in his own house, wrongfully trusted for some while.

So he was lured to be a pawn of Sauron.

I don't think there was any luring of Saruman by Sauron to use the palantir - which is what trapped him. Later, Sauron used persuasion (which does not necessarily imply lying, we have no evidence of that, and even if it were, as pointed previously, it didn't work, quite the contrary) and daunting - not lying.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Clever, and your point is well taken; however, the question is asked of those "IN" LotR whereas the author stands outside it. So it is not, technically, an omission.

As Child pointed out, there are narrators who are part of the story--I believe we even had a thread on the Conceit of the Narrator. Yet at the same time, there are many threads here which attempt to discover who Tolkien is by virtue of his writing--and not just the more autobiographical writings such as Leaf by Niggle and Smith of Wootton Major. There are many Downers no less than other readers (those poor unfortunates who have not found this piece of Middle-earth in the Seventh Age) who insist that we can know many things about an author from his work. There's an entire sub-category of literary analysis based upon psychoanalytic theory, for instance, as well as less theoretical interpretations which believe that the nature or character of the person is unfolded by his or her writing. So for those readers, Tolkien truly is in the text. He does, after all, have by far the greatest effect on the action, having decided either consciously or unconsciously what the story would be, where it would go, who would be the characters. Who other than the author has such an impact upon the action of the story?

But both Child's and Raynor's posts bring another interesting dimension to this question by pointing out that Tolkien, at some point in his life, decided or realized that what he was writing was true history, the very essence of real myth and he spent the remaining years of his life niggling his Legendarium to reflect more clearly aspects of his faith. Does this mean Tolkien saw himself as a Prophet, revealing God's truth? Did Tolkien believe that his writing personally helped him recover from the Fall--that is, did he believe that his writing granted him a State of Grace?

[littlemanpoet]

Interpret it as you like, but for the purposes of this thread the only 6 choices are those provided. Sorry.

I'm rather impressed, however, with Gandalf as an effective liar. Creating poll threads is a rather dangerous business since someone else will pretty certainly think of something I didn't. So it goes.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Interpret it as you like, but for the purposes of this thread the only 6 choices are those provided. Sorry.

I'm rather impressed, however, with Gandalf as an effective liar. Creating poll threads is a rather dangerous business since someone else will pretty certainly think of something I didn't. So it goes.

Well, as mentioned, the issue is not just about those included, but the extent of time that is acceptable..

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Well, as mentioned, the issue is not just about those included, but the extent of time that is acceptable..

Well, I made a referee call but you disagreed.

This thread has gone south as far as I'm concerned, in directions I never intended. But it's not mine, it belongs to everybody who posts.

The most effective rule, if anybody really wants one (which I doubt), is to leave your discussions strictly to the contents of the 6 "books", not including the appendices. And not including clever stuff about the Redbook of Westmarch or Tolkien as one of the characters up for grabs.

But it seems like people are having just as much fun questioning or flouting the parameters, so if that's what you really want to do with this thread, have at it. There. My sour grapes have been squeezed out, and I'm done complaining. Have at it.

[Boromir88]

But it seems like people are having just as much fun questioning or flouting the parameters, so if that's what you really want to do with this thread, have at it.~lmp

Aye, there's no sense in stomping out creativity. Even if it is a poll thread why set up restrictions and limit the possibilities? I didn't know the Down's decided to beef up their security and start screening what thoughtful input was allowed and what wasn't. "Sorry Miss, you are not allowed to bring Morgoth into this discussion. As you see he is not one of the acceptable choices."

I was told a story about a theater class. They decided to do the play Romeo and Juliet. However, there was only one boy who was not assigned a part, as they ran out of roles. So, the teacher asked him what he wanted to do, he could help behind the scenes, he could be a 'townsperson,' what did he want? The boy said he wanted to be a pig that shadowed Juliet and mirrored her emotions. The teacher laughed it off and said, "there are no pigs in Romeo and Juliet." The boy replied "Well, there is in this one."

By restricting the info that is allowed to be mentioned you discourage creative thinking, and creativity can offer fascinating insights that you never considered before.

With that said, this is a new idea, and a thread that has sparked some great discussion. So, how about we get back to that, eh?