Saruman

One of the (relatively few) things that annoyed me about the LOTR movies was the portrayal of Saruman as an ally of Sauron, when he was nothing of the sort. Saruman's intention (in the book) - at least initially - was to take the Ring and destroy Sauron with it. The last thing he wanted was to be one of Mordor's vassals. He wasn't foolish enough to believe that Sauron would share power with anyone - especially when he had his Ring back in his possession.

There are many facets to LOTR, one of them being industry vs nature. It's the 'baddies' who develop a form of Industrial Revolution in Mordor, Isengard and (eventually) in The Shire, whilst the 'goodies' have largely agricultural societies. As Teresa mentions, 'The Scouring' is the cleansing of the landscape of the dirt and grime of industry and the re-emergence of clean, healthy landscapes.
 
Lord of the Rings is very much about free will.
You are right. That is very much one of the major themes. The very purpose of the One Ring is to enslave the will of others. This is what Sauron does with the orcs—they can't help being loyal to him, because they lack even the will to do otherwise. This is the worst crime, the worst sin, in Tolkien's opinion. Tolkien was in favor of monarchy, but not in favor of tyranny. He hated the idea of dictatorships, even benevolent ones, maybe even especially benevolent ones.

Which is why he said in one of his letters that if Gandalf claimed the Ring he would be worse than Sauron. Why? Because with Sauron the line between good and evil still remains, if a little blurry at least still firm. But if Gandalf had the Ring and ruled the world, he would still work for good but under the corruption of the Ring he would force everyone else to be good (as he defined good) as well, he'd remove their ability to be anything else, to choose for themselves, thereby making "good detestable." (Tolkien's own description of the result.)

But fortunately, the Ring only grants power according to the stature of the one who possesses it, and only in accordance with their nature (and to some extent the circumstances under which they obtained it—which is why Bilbo's mercy toward Gollum was so important). The Hobbits don't want power. They are an independent people. In the Shire they have the Mayor, the Thain, the Master of Buckland, all respected figures, but none with a huge amount of authority. So all the time that Bilbo and Frodo have the Ring, it never occurs to either of them to use it to wield power over others. Even Isildur, who was already a king at the time he took the Ring, in all the time he owned it he never turned evil or tyrannical; seemingly, it wasn't in his nature. And therefore it would have taken a much longer time to really corrupt him. (Despite what Peter Jackson's film implies.) No wonder the Ring "wanted" to return to Sauron, because all the time it belonged to Bilbo or Frodo, it couldn't fulfill the function that it was made for.

Tolkien's characters do believe in Fate, they do believe that Higher Powers may be at work. But those Higher Powers (Eru, and the Valar) only place people in certain situations, nudge them in certain directions, while leaving them free to make their own choices. So many of Tolkien's stories are tragedies (those who know only The Hobbit and LOTR often don't realize this) because characters make wrong choices, because they turn aside from the task that is clearly before them. The reason why LOTR ends happily, is because in a rare instance in the history of Middle Earth, enough people do make the right choices. Frodo and Sam don't know that they make it safely across Mordor because Aragorn and his allies have created a distraction at the Black Gate. They only know their own tasks (Frodo to carry the Ring to the Cracks of Doom, and Sam to help him in every way possible), and that if they don't do what they set out to do, nobody else will or can. Aragorn doesn't know exactly where Frodo is, or whether he still has the Ring, or whether he is still true to his promise. These characters and others act simply on faith—that if they each do the task that is given them, maybe things will work out.

Characters like Saruman and Denethor know what they are supposed to do, but for ambition (Saruman) or despair (Denethor) choose to do otherwise, with fatal results. Yes, Sauron is manipulating them through the visions he shows them in the palantír, but they make their own choices.
 
Tolkien's characters do believe in Fate, they do believe that Higher Powers may be at work.
Certainly, but what the characters believe and how Tolkien's world actually functions are very different things. He writes about people making choices - often arbitrary or even poor choices. And the result of those choices - ignoring the overall sweep of the narrative - isn't necessarily karmic. Saruman isn't really punished and is offered rehabilitation several times. Frodo yields nothing but handicap. It's a lot like real life.
 
Why should it be karmic?

Surely karma implies a certain lack of choice. That there is a process in the world which rewards good behaviour or punishes bad implies an outside influence that is making that judgement. (And I know the idea of Karma is much more complicated than I am aware of, and I abuse its definition here. But I think, in much the same way as you.)

What Teresa is saying is that these people have just received the reward or punishment that results from everyone's actions.
Frodo and Sam's sacrifices would have been worthless without Aragorn's attack on the black gate, but his attack would have been equally pointless without the actions of Sam in Cirith Ungol, or even Gollum's in the crack off doom. (So that Gollum's bad action resulted in ultimate good. Hardly karmic either.)

Whether Tolkien is saying there is a sort of generalised tendency for the addition of all the good and bad work to build towards an ultimate positive result is not clear. Eru's incorporation of Morgoth and others' bad notes in the initial music implies that there is. But it's very much an overall tendency, like Hari Seldon's psycho-history, rather than a control of individual actions. Each individual can only contribute their best actions in the hope of being part of an overall trend, or fail to do so through despair, disinterest or malice. The positive tendency will then have to find another path.
 
I don't see it as karmic (and obviously Tolkien would not have done) but a simple matter of consequences—and of trusting that others will act in good faith and do what is right, rather than being so proud and stubborn that you can't accept your role as part of a larger whole.

In Tolkien's world, pride and stubbornness and possessiveness are the things that can trip up the greatest heroes.

(Also note that when Aragorn realizes he is going in the wrong direction*, he course-corrects. Once Gandalf tells him that Merry and Pippin no longer need rescuing, he agrees to go with him to Rohan. Think of all that comes of that particular choice!)

*Of course it was the right direction as long as it was taking him to the right place at the right time to reunite with Gandalf. Aragorn, the great traveller, has apparently developed an ability to know when he has arrived. So instead of continuing on into Fangorn Forest, he takes counsel from the wisest person he knows, and begins a new series of actions.
 
Why should it be karmic?
Because the vast majority of adventure fiction functions as a moralilty tale, with the good characters being largely rewarded and the bad punished. Especially in fantasy, which takes its shape from the old myths. Yet here we have the granddaddy of modern fantasy showing something different. Which I think is interesting.

Overall, LOTR is a story of good conquering evil, but the individual characters' stories are much more realistic.
 
In Tolkien's world, pride and stubbornness and possessiveness are the things that can trip up the greatest heroes.
You’re absolutely right! Look at Sam, who is a bit of a gullible baffoon. While Frodo, of course, cursed by the allure of the one ring, becomes possessive and prideful. We get to watch him escalate, and it even starts to rub off on Sam.
 
You’re absolutely right! Look at Sam, who is a bit of a gullible baffoon. While Frodo, of course, cursed by the allure of the one ring, becomes possessive and prideful. We get to watch him escalate, and it even starts to rub off on Sam.
How do you justify calling Sam a "gullible buffoon"?
 
Sam has the appearance of being a little dimwitted, due to his subservience and manner of speech. Frodo does little to discourage this, with Sam (seeming to be) his employee as much as his friend (a bit like the relationship between Ralph and Ted), acting and speaking to him quite condescendingly for a greater part of the story. It is only after the splitting of the Fellowship that the relationship between them becomes more equal. When you compare Sam with Merry and Pippin, the differences are quite stark.

Having said that, there is far more to Sam than initially meets the eye. He has successfully spied on Frodo for quite some time, and is complicit in the plot with Merry and Pippin to join him on the journey to Rivendell.
 
Sam has the appearance of being a little dimwitted, due to his subservience and manner of speech. Frodo does little to discourage this, with Sam (seeming to be) his employee as much as his friend (a bit like the relationship between Ralph and Ted), acting and speaking to him quite condescendingly for a greater part of the story. It is only after the splitting of the Fellowship that the relationship between them becomes more equal. When you compare Sam with Merry and Pippin, the differences are quite stark.

Having said that, there is far more to Sam than initially meets the eye. He has successfully spied on Frodo for quite some time, and is complicit in the plot with Merry and Pippin to join him on the journey to Rivendell.
Arguably, Sam is the protagonist. But like everything else exceptional in LOTR, there isn't really a MC.
 
While Frodo, of course, cursed by the allure of the one ring, becomes possessive and prideful
In the movie, perhaps. I noticed nothing like that in the books.

Even at the end when he claimed the Ring, it might be argued that he became more possessed than possessive.
 
In the movie, perhaps. I noticed nothing like that in the books.

Even at the end when he claimed the Ring, it might be argued that he became more possessed than possessive.


I'm not sure about this. I don't think that he was prideful, but certainly possessive of the Ring - which was only natural, as that is what it does to the owner.

There are times when he offers to give the Ring up - but he never actually does. And if it wasn't for Gollum, he would never have tried to destroy it. It could even be argued that a major factor in his decision to go on the near-suicidal journey to Mordor was because he didn't want to give the Ring up to someone else.
 
Arguably, Sam is the protagonist. But like everything else exceptional in LOTR, there isn't really a MC.


I agree that Sam - as much as anyone else - is the 'hero' of the book, and the one character who stays stalwart and unbowed throughout. Interestingly, it's left to him to complete the story himself. More than any other character in the story, his character grows from a shy, bashful servant into a confident, worldwise person now capable of taking on any task (including asking Rosie for her hand in marriage).
 
I agree that Sam - as much as anyone else - is the 'hero' of the book, and the one character who stays stalwart and unbowed throughout. Interestingly, it's left to him to complete the story himself. More than any other character in the story, his character grows from a shy, bashful servant into a confident, worldwise person now capable of taking on any task (including asking Rosie for her hand in marriage).
Sam is also one of the few characters whose thoughts we regularly see. Frodo, Gandolf and Aragorn are opaque. Merry, Pippin, Sam and maybe Eowyn are much more complete characters for the reader.
 
I can't remember the exact quote. But after Sam takes the Ring from Frodo (supposing him dead of spider venom), as he walks toward Mordor entertaining "wild fantasies" he imagines turning Gorgoroth into a vast garden. Then he sort of gets a hold of himself, and decides the small garden of a free gardener is all that is his due.

Sam Gamgee was well ground in reality , that's what saved him.
 
Sam has the appearance of being a little dimwitted, due to his subservience and manner of speech. Frodo does little to discourage this, with Sam (seeming to be) his employee as much as his friend (a bit like the relationship between Ralph and Ted), acting and speaking to him quite condescendingly for a greater part of the story. It is only after the splitting of the Fellowship that the relationship between them becomes more equal. When you compare Sam with Merry and Pippin, the differences are quite stark.

Having said that, there is far more to Sam than initially meets the eye. He has successfully spied on Frodo for quite some time, and is complicit in the plot with Merry and Pippin to join him on the journey to Rivendell.
In the appendices, Tolkien gives us Sam's name in the Hobbit language... Banazir Galbasi. This translates to Halfwise Gamevillage. Another way to say it might be The Simpleton from the Rural Working Class... or the Hick from the Sticks. But through most of the narrative he's just called Sam... Ban, in Hobbitese(?) or Hobbitish(?). Ban means half. Sam is literally called half. People expect less of him than others. People almost don't see him most of the time. Even among some Hobbits, he's not considered a full person. But if full wisdom leads a person to wish for power over others (like Saruman, Lotho, Ferny), if full wisdom leads a person to wish for personal glory (Boromir, Ted), or if full wisdom is not getting involved (Robin Smallburrow, the Ents before the Entmoot), thenn Sam is the most fully qualified person to assist Frodo.

I now return you to the discussion of Saruman.
 
I agree that Sam - as much as anyone else - is the 'hero' of the book, and the one character who stays stalwart and unbowed throughout. Interestingly, it's left to him to complete the story himself. More than any other character in the story, his character grows from a shy, bashful servant into a confident, worldwise person now capable of taking on any task (including asking Rosie for her hand in marriage).
I've wondered about Sam a little, who is certainly a deferential servant to Frodo, yet Frodo doesn't seem to elicit so marked a manner of conduct, though there's no question about who will make the final decisions about the management of Bag End. I'm wondering if Tolkien doesn't intend a gently humorous effect. Sam may be rather in awe of Frodo as more learned than himself -- Frodo is the nephew of the Bilbo who spent so much time with the Elves, whom Sam himself doesn't know firsthand; and, of course, Frodo is wealthy. But I don't have the sense that Frodo makes a point of being in a different and superior "class" from Sam.
 
Continuing with Sam.

It's my opinion that Tolkien makes the point of servant leadership over and over and over throughout his story. Aragorn is a healing king of justice and peace while Gandalf is the angel who inspires the free peoples. Legolas is a prince of the Greenwood and Gimli is a scion of high nobility as well. Boromir and Faramir would be princes in any other realm, but Gondor. Theoden, Eomer, and Eowyn represent the house of Eorl the Young. Neither Celeborn nor Elrond claim a crown, while Galadriel, a grand daughter of Finwe, was actually born in Aman. And in the Shire, Pippin and Merry are the heirs of the two most noble houses. Even Frodo is a type of landed gentry. None of these characters ever uses their position of birth to belittle, abuse, or threaten somone with punishment for poor service. Theoden, FaramirAragorn, and Frodo all have to judge people for treason, but their judgements are always factually objective and not based upon whimsy.

All of these relationships between people of social classes are only quickly portrayed, except that of Frodo and Sam. I think it is both a deeply held Hobbit cultural value to respect others and a character virtue of Frodo that Frodo never seeks to take away Sam's dignity (as in the film). These cultural and personal values allowed Frodo to receive and give help to Sam. I don't need to repeat their friendship here, but I think this specific example can be then extrapolated to Aragorn's interaction with the Master of the Houses of Healing, to Gandalf's friendship with Butterbur, to Galadriel's high estimation of Gimli, Eowyn's empathy for Merry, and Pippin's friendship with Bergil to reveal what honest recognition of another person entails.

Tolkien loved epic stories, mythology, and heroes. These stories feature an extremely high number of royals and nobles. I think Tolkien had a reverence for nobility because of what it represents, not what it sometimes/often seems to be. In my opinion, Tolkien's writing shows that nobility is to serve, to protect, and to bless the community for the benefit of the community. Why do the people need a King of Gondor and Arnor? Because they need peace, protection, and an advocate for their wellbeing.

As an Ainu created by Eru before Arda, Saruman knew better than even Galadriel (or Cirdan!) that leadership is to represent Eru. I often compare Sam to Boromir. By comparing him to Saruman, we get the highest and most basic characters in the narrative, though they only cross paths twice. Sam's brain screamed to not trust Faramir, yet his heart knew better. Saruman told Gandalf and Theoden that he was trustworthy, yet clearly he was not. I think this is because Sam wanted other people to succeed while Saruman did not. And the character who should have been the most noble in Middle-earth (Frodo knew it) falls far short of the truly noble Samwise Gamgee, the village idiot. Service and wisdom go hand in hand in Tolkien's thoughts.
 
I always read Sam and Frodo's relationship was that of a gentleman and servant or tradesman class. I doubt a Victorian would have a found anything odd about the way they speak to each other.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Brian G Turner JRR Tolkien 3

Similar threads


Back
Top