Saruman and betrayal

[lindil]

I've always wondered how Saruman pulled off amassing his army with [seemingly]no one but the Ents noticing it was mostly ORCS.

So, if the 'West' meaning Galadriel/Lorien, Rivendell/Elrond/rangers and Denethor/Gondor had found out earlier. What could have been done?

Perhaps as well, Denethor did know [via the palantir] and this is one of the many things he distrusted Gandalf over.

But as re: Saruman:
*pre-emptive strikes ?
* another secret mission by G.?
*'live and let live' till attacks start?
*negotiate?

The history of M-E is rife w/ treason, Maeglin, Morgoth, THe sons of Ulfang, Wormtongue, Saruman...to name the main ones that come to mind. Excepting Wormtonuge [outed unsuccessfully by Eomer] are there any other instances of treason being spotted early?

[Kuruharan]

I think there would probably have been only one realistic option. They would have to get Rohan to try and flatten Isengard. They might have tried negotiation, but I think we all know where that would lead.

I can't really think of an instance where treason was nipped in the bud...

[Mänwe]

Lindil you raise an interesting point, though I would dare to correct you and say that it was indeed Gandalf who discovered the mind and plans of Saruman before any. I say this on the existence of the following quote;

“…and the valley below seems far away. I looked on it and saw that, whereas it had once been green and fair, it was now filled with pits and forges. Wolves and orcs were housed in Isengard, for Saruman was mustering a great force on his own account, in rivalry of Sauron and not in his service yet.” – (Chapter 2, The Council of Elrond)

There is no text before hand suggesting that the Ents had discovered the intentions of Saruman before this quote and so it is I believe unfounded to say that it was they who discovered it.

Why no-one else should have discovered the truth behind Saruman before Gandalf bought such tidings to the council in Rivendell was I believe the turmoil of the times, and the numerous references to Saruman having masked his feelings well.

“So Saruman guessed, and he had concealed his mind and deceived his messenger…” (Book II Chapter 2, The Council of Elrond)

“…and I still trusted the lore of Saruman” (Book I, Chapter 2, The Shadow of the Past)

“`This is grievous news concerning Saruman,' he said; `for we trusted him and he is deep in all our counsels.” (Book II Chapter 2, The Council of Elrond)

The elves still held him in high regard and had no reason to distrust him; consequently they would not have watched him. Gandalf also the most prominent (other than Saruman) of his order at this time still trusted him.

“all that he would reveal to us of his ring-lore told against my fears. So my doubt slept - but uneasily. Still I watched and I waited.” (Book I, Chapter 2, The Shadow of the Past)

“But Saruman has long studied the arts of the Enemy himself, and thus we have often been able to forestall him. It was by the devices of Saruman that we drove him from Dol Guldur. It might be that he had found some weapons that would drive back the Nine.” (Book II, Chapter 2, The Council of Elrond)

Though this trust was beginning to become more uneasy until his meeting with him at Orthanc after the news bought to him by Radagast. In summary he had deceived them all, and none had known his real thoughts. The absence of a discovery before the point at which Gandalf saw, is proof of this I think.

As for what might have happened, I am not a great fan of speculation but perhaps we would see a “re-run” of the flight of Sauron from Dol Guldur. The Council perhaps may have driven Saruman from Orthanc.

[Kuruharan]

The Council perhaps may have driven Saruman from Orthanc.

Or tried to pen him in as Gandalf did in the event. I don't know if they would have wanted to kill him. I personally think it unlikely.

I do think they would have wanted to keep him from getting away if possible.

[Mänwe]

Kuruharan quite right,

"'The treacherous are ever distrustful,' answered Gandalf wearily. 'But you need not fear for your skin. I do not wish to kill you, or hurt you, as you would know, if you really understood me. And I have the power to protect you. I am giving you a last chance. You can leave Orthanc, free – if you choose.'" - (The Voice of Saruman, Book III The Two Towers)

I was unlooking during my first post. As Gandalf entertains the idea of letting him free here, then had they taken action against him earlier I would say that the same would have applied.

[the phantom]

What could have been done?

Aren't what-ifs fun?

pre-emptive strikes?

That would certainly be the smart way to go, if you could catch Saruman by surprise the way the Ents did and get it over with quick. A siege certainly isn't an option in my mind, because you can't spare the troops and time for a siege with Sauron sitting across the Anduin. No no, if possible you'd want to land a crushing blow to Saruman with no warning and turn your attention back to Mordor as quickly as possible.

'live and let live' till attacks start?

You mean ignore Saruman until he attacks? Definitely not. Getting Rohan to ignore Saruman was Grima's whole job. Saruman wanted to be left alone while he built up.

negotiate?

Well, I suppose that might be the option that all the hopeful unrealistic people would recommend. Yes indeed, in their silly little minds talking/bargaining/negotiating/pacifying always makes things better. But arguing against them would be every person who has ever dealt with Morgoth, Sauron, Glaurung, and other such delightful individuals.

I'm thinking Elrond and the others would be intelligent enough not to negotiate. You'll notice that Gandalf talked terms with Saruman after he smashed his army and had him trapped. It wasn't really a negotiation. It was mercy to an already defeated opponent.

[Kuruharan]

if you could catch Saruman by surprise the way the Ents did and get it over with quick. A siege certainly isn't an option in my mind, because you can't spare the troops and time for a siege with Sauron sitting across the Anduin.

Hmmm...I think it might depend on when Saruman's treachery was discovered.

Say, for example, that somehow Saruman was exposed years before Sauron wanted to move. Would Sauron attempt to rescue Saruman?

[Saurreg]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Hmmm...I think it might depend on when Saruman's treachery was discovered.

Say, for example, that somehow Saruman was exposed years before Sauron wanted to move. Would Sauron attempt to rescue Saruman?

That would depend on how strong Sauron was at that time and also what was Saruman's worth to him also. If Sauron moved unprepared and was defeated by the Gondorians in the first few engagements, it might not derail his plans but would certainly retard them. However when it comes to resources, Sauron had the potential the fair out-stripped Gondor, so no permanent damage might have come to it.

So that leaves the question on how Sauron was going to come to the assistance of Saruman. Obviously bashing his way from Mordor to Isen was really out of the question and defeats the purpose of creating two fronts.

[Kuruharan]

So that leaves the question on how Sauron was going to come to the assistance of Saruman.

As you indicated above, I think it would depend on timing.

If we really wanted to get in depth on this we'd set up a few time periods and assess the strategic situations at the time.

[the phantom]

Sauron rescue Saruman? I doubt it. He certainly wouldn't rescue him in the way the Sons of Elrond rescued their mother or Finrod saved Beren's skin. The difference lies in sacrifice. Can you see Sauron weakening himself, his kingdom, or his ability to make war in order to save someone else? No way.

I think Sauron would love to see the good side fighting with someone who was supposed to be one of them. Now, if the battle looked like it would be one sided against Saruman, then I can imagine Sauron trying to help him even the odds in some way, but it wouldn't be to save his life. It would be to spill the blood of his enemies.

If you were being attacked by cats there's no way I'd come to your rescue, because I wouldn't want to get scratched myself. Of course, that doesn't mean I couldn't toss you a baseball bat to help you out. And at the same time, my tossing you a bat doesn't necessarily mean that I like you and want to help- it may just mean that I hate cats.

[Saurreg]

I think the question or not Sauron would go to the aid of Saruman could be answered by part if we can come to a consensus on the the characteristics of Sauron the entity.

Was he a primeval dark deity of chaotic evil in which blood and destruction was the ultimate appeal and desire? Or was he a quasi-ominipotent entity of conscious sentience and logical thought, in which he had a plan and was working to it?

If he was this blood frenzied god of destruction in which chaos, death and mayhem were valued above all else, then quite frankily I see no reason for him to aid Saruman. The provisonal result of Saruman being isolated and defeated early, leading to a tougher struggle by Mordor to overwhelm the free people of MiddleEarth would be greater bloodletting from both sides - which would appeal to Sauron more than ever since blood was what he existed for. The blood of Saruman and his Uruk Hais was libation. The blood of the free people that defeated and laid siege to Isengard was libation. The blood of his orcs and eastern allies in the greater-than-needed-intensity of subsequent meat-grinding assaults on the west would be libation. The more-than-actual bloodletting of the defenders would be libation. To sum it out, this Sauron was a creature of the moment in which the end was death and destruction and that the means were the horrendous violence of battle and needless sacrifice.

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 - the quintessential Machiavelli of the books.

In the art of maneuver, the strategist aims for maximum gains with minimal expenditure. He choses to face an enemy at its weakness whilst avoiding its strength on a battlefield and time of his chosing. And one of the hallmarks of great manuever is the ability to create a second front and deal the enemy with a blow that would weaken him so that his defeat was eminent when the time came for a general engagement with the maneuverist. Saruman was that second front Sauron was counting on and the greater destruction the former could exact, the better it would be because the enemy would have to expend higher amounts of resources. So it would be logical for Sauron to come to the aid of Saruman if the act of assistance is outweighed by the benefits of Saruman still in the game and able to exact a dreadful toll on the enemy. In this case the end justifies the means.

So what would have happened if Saruman's forces was not subjugated? I can forsee the destruction of Rohan and the eventual attrition that would wipe out the rogue Istari and severely cripple the rest of the West. Sauron then unleashes his full might while the free people were still weak and simply overrun them.

[Kuruharan]

I think Sauron would love to see the good side fighting with someone who was supposed to be one of them. Now, if the battle looked like it would be one sided against Saruman, then I can imagine Sauron trying to help him even the odds in some way, but it wouldn't be to save his life. It would be to spill the blood of his enemies.
-the phantom

I think the question or not Sauron would go to the aid of Saruman could be answered by part if we can come to a consensus on the the characteristics of Sauron the entity.

Was he a primeval dark deity of chaotic evil in which blood and destruction was the ultimate appeal and desire? Or was he a quasi-ominipotent entity of conscious sentience and logical thought, in which he had a plan and was working to it?

-and-

He was as I would submit, a master strategist of the art of maneuver - the quintessential Machiavelli of the books.
Saurreg

I think you both summed up Sauron's character accurately.

A review of the Tale of Years reveals that prior to 2953 removing Saruman would have been easy because Isengard was evidently unfortified. (One has to ask why, because it was originally intended to be a fortress...maybe the fortifications were allowed to decay to the point of being militarily indefensible...or something.)

After 2953 Isengard was fortified and presumably garrisoned, requiring military intervention to deal with.

Unfortunately, by that time Sauron was back in Mordor as himself and had his lackeys in Dol Guldur. I think we can say that he would have been militarily capable of intervening to save Saruman if he felt so inclined.

[Animalmother]

For twenty years, Saruman kept orcs employed below ground inside the ring of Isengard, out of public view, developing industry and breeding human-orc hybrids. In the last two years before the War of the Ring, he may have recruited Uruk-hai warriors in larger and larger numbers, keeping them in barracks inside Isengard and paying them in "man-flesh" and the goods he manufactured. Thus, the operation escaped the notice of the White Council.

Where would he get man-flesh? He spent centuries in the East of Middle Earth. He had extensive contacts with the Easterlings. He purchased human slaves from the Easterlings, importing them through the wilds south of Mirkwood to the fringes of Fangorn, thence to Isengard.

Saruman was a successful Machiavellian, feigning goodness while doing evil.

The account Gandalf gives to the Council of Elrond of his dialogue with Saruman is not plausible. Saruman's Machiavellian argument must have been that it's time to fight fire with fire. Problems: the Elves are leaving, the Dwarves are too few, Men are not tough enough to stand up against Mordor's orcs. Solution: Breed human-orc hybrids, recruit our own orcs, and if possible use the One Ring ! Thus, some trace of the once free peoples and their cultures will survive. Saruman argued as Machiavelli argued, that sometimes, to do good, you must use some evil. If you don't, your opponent who is totally without scruple will defeat you.

But Gandalf does not present Saruman's argument this way. Instead, he has Saruman urging Gandalf to ally with Sauron. This is not plausible. Saruman would have known that Gandalf would never agree to such an alliance. Saruman would have used the persuasive Machiavellian argument with some hope that Gandalf would agree. Gandalf probably feared that if he presented Saruman's argument accurately, some at the Council of Elrond, such as Boromir and possibly the Dwarves, might have been persuaded by it. Thus, Gandalf thought it better to present a distorted account of the Saruman-Gandalf dialogue, which made Saruman's argument look completely depraved and unacceptable.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Welcome Animalmother! I think your conclusions are more or less right... except...

Originally Posted by Animalmother

Where would he get man-flesh? He spent centuries in the East of Middle Earth. He had extensive contacts with the Easterlings. He purchased human slaves from the Easterlings, importing them through the wilds south of Mirkwood to the fringes of Fangorn, thence to Isengard.

Well, I don't think we have to come to these wild conclusions. There surely were some poor folks of Dunlands who had problems with Saruman, and in later days there were Rohirrim (the mounds at the fords of Isen are a good example, I think). I don't think it is necessary to think that the Uruk-hai must've been eating man-flesh all the time.

Originally Posted by Animalmother

But Gandalf does not present Saruman's argument this way. Instead, he has Saruman urging Gandalf to ally with Sauron. This is not plausible. Saruman would have known that Gandalf would never agree to such an alliance. Saruman would have used the persuasive Machiavellian argument with some hope that Gandalf would agree. Gandalf probably feared that if he presented Saruman's argument accurately, some at the Council of Elrond, such as Boromir and possibly the Dwarves, might have been persuaded by it. Thus, Gandalf thought it better to present a distorted account of the Saruman-Gandalf dialogue, which made Saruman's argument look completely depraved and unacceptable.

Are you implying that Gandalf lied?
Actually, there is one thing you have missed. Saruman's thoughts were at first probably very close to those you present. Typical machiavellism, and he probably believed it. He might even lied to himself that he is really doing this for the better future of Middle-Earth. This is what he tried to present to Gandalf. But later (and most obviously after 3000, when he looked to the Palantír), Saruman was thinking just of himself, he did not even pretend to himself that he is doing this for anyone's good. He was, literally, blinded by his lust for power. This is why he was not able to convince Gandalf - he had a momentary blackout. He forgot his role. A mistake, but as we all know, such mistakes happen. After all, Gandalf wouldn't'we agreed with Saruman, but this way Saruman revealed his real thoughts, that he is not just a machiavellian fanatic who is blinded by his theory, but that he is already a Dark Lord aspirant.

He came and laid his long hand on my arm. "And why not, Gandalf? " he whispered. "Why not? The Ruling Ring? If we could command that, then the Power would pass to us. That is in truth why I brought you here. For I have many eyes in my service, and I believe that you know where this precious thing now lies. Is it not so? Or why do the Nine ask for the Shire, and what is your business there?" As he said this a lust which he could not conceal shone suddenly in his eyes.

[Animalmother]

Gandalf estimated that Saruman commanded ten-thousand Uruk-hai. About 5,000 pounds or 2, 300 kilograms of flesh per day would keep them happy. If only one-tenth of the flesh were human, that's 230 kilograms per day, or about 10 people per day, or 3,650 people per year. to feed to the Uruk-hai. Texas's geographical size and population when fighting the Comanche Indians from AD 1838 through AD 1860s was close to Rohan's. In the 1840s, we were losing about two-hundred Texans per year, killed or kidnapped by the Comanche. These losses meant all out war between Texas and Comanches. Rohan would have reacted the same way if any similar number of its people were taken. Saruman could not have man-flesh from Rohan without provoking all out war with Rohan, which he was trying to avoid in the years before the War of the Ring. Similarly, he was trying to persuade the Dunlendings that he was their friend. That would be difficult to do while feeding Dunlending people to Uruk-hai, even if the people were of low socio-economic status. Saruman needed the loyalty of the Dunlendings, to keep his army balanced -- he could not trust his Uruk-hai to be loyal for loyalty's sake. Also, if the Uruk-hai meat meals were taken from the people of Rohan or from the Dunlendings, the widely travelled Gandalf would certainly have heard of these strange dietary practices at Isengard long before he fell into Saruman's trap on July 10, III 3018. For all these reasons, Saruman's source of man-flesh must have been remote rather than local, and the East was the obvious place for an experienced Easterling expert to look for it.

I am not implying Gandalf was lying at the Council of Elrond. I am stating it flat-out. Gandalf was a master of deception, one who delighted in secrets and in trickery. In the Hobbit, he allows his Dwarvish companions to be tormented all night by trolls, pitching his voice to provoke the trolls into foolish quarrels with each other until sunrise. He probably could have intervened sooner, but he was enjoying destroying the trolls in a most economical manner. Gandalf suspected Bilbo and Frodo's ring was the One Ring for seventeen years before he finally told Frodo the truth about it, in April III 3018. He also kept the secret of the One Ring from Saruman, who was the Head of the White Council. The Gandalf we see is Gandalf as seen and recorded by the Hobbits in their history. He's not necessarily the real Gandalf, just as Plato's Socrates is not necessarily the real Socrates. It's clear that not everyone on Middle Earth trusts Gandalf. He's close only to the High Elves, the Dunedain remnant, the Dwarves, and some rich Hobbits.

Gandalf and Saruman had known one another in their human forms for two-thousand years. Saruman has plenty of time to devise his speech for Gandalf. He was a master of rhetoric. I do not believe Saruman would have made any mistakes in delivering it. But in Gandalf's account, Saruman's speech begins badly, with sarcasm and insults. Next, Saruman proposes an alliance with Sauron, the argument least likely to appeal to Gandalf. Next Saruman appeals to Gandalf to reveal the hiding place of the One Ring. This is not a plausible sequence. Finally, if Saruman thought there were no hope of persuading Gandalf, or if Saruman had gone completely over to Sauron's side, why did Saruman not torture Gandalf immediately for the truth about the Ring? Saruman had Gandalf as guest of Orthanc for sixty-eight days. My conclusion is that Saruman was not really a loyal a vassal of Sauron. Saruman was truly "Saruman of Many Colours," meaning he was a chameleon who would adapt his tactics to circumstances. Just as the Catholic church condemned Machiavelli's teaching, Gandalf condemned Saruman's. For Gandalf, there was no compromising with evil, not even to the extent of using its weapons. The Valar did not send the Istari to Middle Earth to compromise with evil, even for good ends.

Gandalf knew the seductive power of the Machiavellian argument. Gandalf himself was tempted by the Ring. Gandalf was so fearful of the power of the Machiavellian argument, he did not want it repeated, even second-hand, in the company of weaker people, such as Boromir, Gloin, and who-knows-who-else at the Council of Elrond.
.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Oh, what a disgusting topic, measuring amounts of man flesh needed...

Anyway, Uglúk says nothing about how much did they eat. He certainly sees "man flesh" as a reason to hold Saruman high in his eyes. So it was certainly something "special". This does not mean it was not served everyday, but it also does not mean it was. It might as well have been that this was a bonus... anyway, the idea of Easterlings seemed unlikely to me because it would be very, very hard to get the "transports" across the Anduin and then across Rohan. I am not saying it is not interesting, and the argument of Saruman knowing the East is quite logical, I like that explanation. But somehow, it seems too much improbable to me...

And that thing about Gandalf... you are right that most of the records come from the Red Book. However, don't forget that Bilbo was, after all, the one who knew him best, as well as all the others, Frodo, hobbits, elves. And an idea of Gandalf lying to Elrond seems laughable to me. First, Elrond would know. Second, Gandalf wouldn't lie in front of these people and in such a grave matter. Third, I doubt Gandalf would actually lie at any moment. And to the things you mention: He didn't know about the Ring: he had just some fear or suspicion, but he was not sure, which in the end turned to be a very dangerous delay. Tricking the Trolls into quarrel was a matter of saving the Dwarves. And as he himself says, he "was not available" all the night: he was scouting ahead and when he returned, he started to act rightaway.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

With all due respect to those who feel otherwise, I think that sometimes we get too caught up in the "translator's conceit" of the book, and second-guess things that should just be taken at face value.

I have no problem with assuming that the Gandalf described in the book is the true Gandalf. And based on what I've read from Tolkien, I think he'd agree. So I don't think that Gandalf is lying, or misconstruing Saruman's speech, or anything of the sort. If he tells us that's what Saruman said, why should we believe otherwise?

Yes, Gandalf is a manipulator to some extent, but lying is not one of his tools.

"I do not lie." - G the W

[Animalmother]

Gandalf had several days before the Council of Elrond in which to confide to Elrond, the other High Elves, and Aragorn an accurate account of the words and mind of Saruman, without fear that any of them would be corrupted by Saruman's Machiavellian argument. He knew they could not be corrupted. He did not know that of Gloin, Gimili, Boromir, and maybe even Prince Legolas. It was to bring these up to date that the Council of Elrond was held, and where Gandalf spoke of Saruman. There it was reported that Sauron had attempted to bribe the Dwarves with three Dwarven Rings and with the restoration of Khazad-dum. Legolas's father had a known weakness for riches. Sauron, no fool, knew that most Men, most Dwarves and even some Elves were not incorruptible. Gandalf must have made the same calculation.

There are such things as White Lies, which are lies used to save lives and souls, and which are not for the profit of the liar.

[Rhod the Red]

As seems the case in all examples, and in life generally, we give others the benefit of the doubt to trust them. Only at the last minute does the White Council know of Saruman's treachery. The same with the books and life generally.

[Břicho]

This is an interesting thread. Animalmother I find it fascinating that you think Gandalf lied in order to not corrupt any people in the Council. Your argument makes sense to me;and I LIKE it, somehow; except I would suggest that Middle-Earth is NOT earth as we know it(of course, this is obvious, but bear with me.) Gandalf consistently not only displays an ability to manipulate(towards the common good) but an ability to "fire up men's hearts" to instill courage--of course I know you know that. But Gandalf displays another trait very consistently, so consistently that he's able to let go of the most powerful instrument on Earth, and let it go into darkness and uncertainty; this would be sheer madness if we were talking about an atomic bomb, wouldn't it?

This other trait that Gandalf displays--and which I think you forget-- is FAITH.

He has a FAITH in a higher power that leads him to believe that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, Frodo was meant to have it, and possibly, hopefully, Frodo was meant to somehow wander into Mordor and destroy the Ring, and so on. He displays FAITH in Pippin; somehow, for somereason Merry and Pippin are MEANT to be in the Fellowship of the Ring, and so on.

Given that Elrond has a certain faith, too, that the Members of the Council had been "called" for the purpose of the council(though not by him, actually ORDAINED by some higher power to be there) I think it's possible that Gandalf would have trusted that it was indeed and spoken freely. Also, I think that Gandalf and Elrond, and a few others in the Council could sense corruption and evil better than most; they weren't easily deceived--it took a Wizard to pull the wool over their eyes.

In my opinion in your interpretation, Gandalf did not have much faith; he sent Frodo away because there was no other choice, merely. But I don't find that believable: only in the context of Gandalf's incredible FAITH(though not doubtfree) does the decision to send off Frodo to Mordor seem believable to me, character-wise.

Also...from Saruman's side.
Again, your interpretation is plausible; there's something even cool about it; but he simply could have been a little batty, and slipped up.
He did not necessarily understand Gandalf's intentions; perhaps a little part of Saruman had always wanted to rule and he simply assumed, as Gandalf was of the same high, rare order as he that Gandalf had the same intentions--that they were meant to counter Sauron: and one way to do that was to rule.

I say SARUMAN DID NOT UNDERSTAND GANDALF at all; because Gandalf had a certain FAITH(maybe Faith is a sort of wisdom) and Saruman didnt have it and never had had it.
His "wisdom" had always been more as you have painted Gandalf's--a Machiavellian, scheming, clever, manipulative wisdom.

Gandalf could be that way, too, to be sure, but his chief wisdom and what set him aside from many in Middle Earth was in his trust in FAITH and belief that some things happened for an ordained reason; in the ability to seize the moment and come up with creative solutions(like sending Frodo to the fire--only someone with extreme faith would have done that) and so on.

Your interpretation is fascinating; and, within the translator's conceit, makes some sense; but there are other interpretations.

Also, regarding the "ten men a day" thing needed for feeding orcs...I don't agree. He did not have to feed them man-flesh every ten days...It could have only been on holidays. I would also say, that perhaps mans-flesh was something that Orcs LOVED like a drug; in which case, Saruman might have given them just a taste and promised them more once victory was at hand. In which case, he would have needed to feed them much less than 230 kgs a year...Maybe only 230 kgs a year...Also, whenever they went on a raid, (say before the eoreds started fighting them at the Fords) as long as they found some farmers or something, they would get a little mansflesh as a bit of a "reward"--their spoils, so to speak. (But never enough, never enough) Yum.

(i know the idea is horrid, but I think the Orcs ARE horrid and Tolkien plays it down, actually.)

[mhagain]

Yup, I'd always viewed being given man flesh was a special thing, a reward. I don't have the book to hand, but am pretty sure that "we ain't had nothin' but maggoty bread for three stinking days" has at least an equivalent in it. A clear case of Uruks not having an exclusive diet.

If Saruman had been outed earlier, I'm pretty sure he would have dug himself well into Isengard. Only the Ents it seems were fully capable of actually doing anything, and even then they couldn't get him out of the place. It would have likely ended up as a protracted siege with resources tied up in keeping an eye on him. There would have been no Helms Deep, no Ride of the Rohirrim, and Gondor would have likely fallen. By the time the White Council were really aware that the Necromancer was Sauron returned, he was already strong enough to move back to Barad Dur. And I think he would have been quite happy to leave Saruman stew - tying up resources in the west was the objective, and doing so would have had the same end result.

[Kuruharan]

I don't have the book to hand, but am pretty sure that "we ain't had nothin' but maggoty bread for three stinking days" has at least an equivalent in it. A clear case of Uruks not having an exclusive diet.

You are probably thinking of the orc throwing Pippin the stale bread and strip of meat.

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.

[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.

[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.