# The Tragic Character of Saruman.



## Aglarband (Oct 27, 2004)

This is really just a discussion on how Saruman fits all the qualities of a Tragic Character. The only question I have is: Does he acheive Transcendence? And any other things you would like to add to his Tragicness...


----------



## Gildor (Oct 28, 2004)

Not really sure what you mean by transcendence, but Saruman was given several opportunities to repent his deeds and return to the path of good, and he rejected them. 

He is indeed tragic in the sense of his great nobility and wisdom being turned to wickedness, but as with many of such fallen figures his own pride was largely to blame for what befell him. Too much pride can make the wisest person do foolish things, and moreover it often prevents him from recognizing that foolishness for what it is.


----------



## Astaldo (Oct 28, 2004)

He was too proud and that wat his doom. In my opinion there were sopmetimes that he wnated to stop all these and be good again but he couldn't because of his pride and the influence of Sauron. On the other hand we all know that he desired power more than everything so I think he is a tragic character but not as Turin for example.


----------



## Eledhwen (Oct 28, 2004)

I believe that Saruman's pride outweighed his ability to repent after he defiled Isuldur's bones and took the Elendilmir. His repentance required that he hand the keys of Orthanc over, which he refused to do until he could escape unnoticed by the victors (who discovered his crime when they searched the tower); by which time only a petty, mean and vengeful heart remained.

Astaldo is quite right about Turin. Saruman's mistakes were calculated misdeeds which followed deliberate concealment for personal gain. Turin's were more heat of the moment. He was under a dragon's enchantment and suffered many horrors. He would be sent for therapy these days (what a weird thought. "Come in, Mr Turin. Just lie on the couch there while I read your notes...")


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 29, 2004)

I never pity him, and that is how I selfishly judge tragedy. I do pity Maeglim and Gollum and Turin, but not Sarumen. Even when Frodo pities him, I side with Sam. Watch out for the devil. 

Sarumen never repents. We never see him struggle with evil, only give into it eagerly like a spoilt child.


----------



## Astaldo (Oct 29, 2004)

I dont' know why but I feel pity of Saruman. Maybe I am wromg as Frodo but...


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 29, 2004)

Well, I think we were probably meant to pity him. His death is definitely described in a way to invoke pity. I think rejoicing in his just desserts is not what Tolkien had in mind, or we wouldn't have Frodo's musings on the subject or the gray specter gazing into the West then facing rejection in the form of a cold wind.


However, Sarumen is only pitiable in that he meant a bitter end. As a CHARACTER he is not pitiable. Yes, the circumstances are pitiable. He's dead when he could have lived and probably done no harm. It was an unnecessary, if justified, death. However he, himself, is not to me.


----------



## Gildor (Oct 29, 2004)

Saruman is perhaps undeserving of pity, but his fall should evoke a tragic sense of waste, if nothing else. He was great among the Wise of Middle Earth and considered great even among those in Aman. His evil deeds move him from that lofty position down to nothing more than a tattered vagabond stirring up petty wickedness in the Shire, finally to be murdered by his own starved and wretched slave. 

Frodo was wise not to let Saruman be killed out of revenge, for that was indeed what Saruman wished and would have accomplished nothing save to lay even more of a stain upon the Shire. 

The evils that surround Turin are beyond his control, so he remains someone we really feel sorry for. He doesn't _want_ to bring chaos and hurt to those around him, but it seems that every choice he makes leads to disaster. By contrast, Saruman sought out his own evils and embraced them wholeheartedly, and so we feel very little sympathy for his misfortune, though we may mourn the destruction of someone who was once great and noble.


----------



## Húrin Thalion (Oct 29, 2004)

The fall of Saruman is tragic, not so much for him in his own right as for middle earth. Saruman does much evil, both to his neighbours and indirectly to the peoples who are forced to fight Mordor with one eye fixed at Isengard. If you stretch your pity as far as Gandalf was able to do, his first and foremost victims are his slaves and servants for whom even life must be considered a torment. 

But, apart from that perspective if we look at the way Tolkien wrote it, the first feeling that Sarumans evokes is not pity, rather anger or disgust. Certainly he was proud and failed to repent even in the very end, but he is described in a way that implies that this was fully his own fault, and there was no excuse for not resisting the temptations of middle earth. He is also punished accordingly and sent into the Void.

Húrin Thalion


----------



## Eledhwen (Oct 31, 2004)

> The Scouring of the Shire - last couple of pages:_"...Frodo said 'Do not believe him! He has lost all power, save his voice that can still daunt you and deceive you if you let it. But I will not have him slain. It is useless to meet revenge with revenge: it will heal nothing. Go, Saruman, bu the speediest way!' ....
> Saruman turned to go, and Wormtongue shuffled after him. But even as Saruman passed close to Frodo a knife flashed in his hand, and he stabbed swiftly. The blade turned on the hidden mail-coat and snapped. A dozen hobbits, led by Sam, leaped forward with a cry and flung the villain to the ground. Sam drew his sword.
> 'No, Sam!' said Frodo. 'Do not kill him even now. For he has not hurt me. And in any case I do not wish him to be slain in this evil mood. He was great once, of a noble kind that we should not dare to raise our hands against. He is fallen, and his cure is beyond us; but I would still spare him, in the hope that he may find it.'
> Saruman rose to his feet, and stared at Frodo. *There was a strange look in his eyes of mingled wonder and respect and hatred.* 'You have grown, Halfling,' he said. 'Yes, you have grown very much. You are wise, and cruel. You have robbed my revenge of sweetness, and now I must go hence in bitterness, in debt to your mercy. I hate it and you!...'_


Saruman felt that Frodo was indeed heaping burning coals on his head with this last display of mercy, and he even goes so far as to compliment Frodo on his strength of character. There seems to be an underlying belief in Frodo (born of his troubled fools errand, maybe) that there is a power that will mete out justice in its own good time. And maybe he rememberd his conversation with Gandalf a couple of years earlier when Frodo asked:


> _"O Gandalf, best of friends, what am I to do? For now I am really afraid. What am I to do? What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!"
> "Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in theend, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity."_


I remember, as I read Tolkien's other works, how much is endured under the terror of evil before the hand of justice stirs. And even in the case of Sauron, a power of no greater order than Sauron himself is sent, and even then it is to advise and stand alongside the forces of good, not to strike for them.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Oct 31, 2004)

Saruman is one of my favourite characters, as I have an attraction to 'supernatural' villains.

It's sad that such a mighty and noble figure should fall, but it's even sadder to think of all the heinous deeds he committed.

I was quite touched by Frodo's words to Saruman in _The Scouring of the Shire_:



> He was great once, of a noble kind that we should not dare to raise our hands against. He is fallen, and his cure is beyond us; but I would still spare him, in the hope that he may find it.



The contrast between a once great being gone evil and become lowly, and the seemingly unimportant halfling grown greatly through pains and labour, is unmissable.



Húrin Thalion said:


> He is also punished accordingly and sent into the Void.



That we do not know. There is certainly no indication of it in the books.


----------



## Gildor (Nov 2, 2004)

I would suggest that Saruman's ultimate fate was similar to that of Sauron's; to become little more than an empty spirit of malice, formless and impotent. He was denied mercy from the West, but I think it would be a stretch to say he was sent into the Void, something which seems reserved for only the greatest Evil such as Melkor.


----------



## Aglarband (Nov 3, 2004)

Why Saruman is a tragic figure in my eyes:
Throughout great literature there has always been the Tragic figure. Some would agrue that they are the best characters, however I disagree. However they are some of the more interesting. To be a tragic figure it is widely accepted that you need the following things: 


> Mimetic Perspective — the sudden and catastrophic fall of a great person from fortune to misfortune.
> Affective (audience response) Perspective — arouses a catharsis of pity and terror.
> Causal relationship between character and fate — character contributes to destiny.
> Character not eminently good or noble, a mean between goodness and depravity. Possesses a hamartia, tragic flaw or simply a mistake in judgement.
> ...


( Source )

I feel that Saruman fits the bill quite nicely, while other characters such as Gollum are just pathetic and show no real tragic parts. Obviously Saruman's tragic flaw is his need for power and thus his thirst for the ring. It is this that eventualy leads to his demise and the lose of his title over the councile and eventualy his life.


----------



## Maeglin (Nov 4, 2004)

Well I have another question while we are on this topic....are you trying to say that he is a tragic _character_ or a tragic _hero_ ? The description of a tragic character you provided, Aglarband, seems more like the description of a tragic hero. The description fits with Saruman until the last 3 parts, because Saruman really doesn't meet his fate bravely, nor does he ever accept his own flaw. And yes, Saruman's choices effected more than just his own life...but not to any great extent in the end, I think. 

You say that Gollum is just a pathetic character and fits no real tragic parts, but I must say that with the exception of being a great person that fell from fortune to misfortune, the description fits Gollum exactly, and more so than Saruman. Even so, though, Gollum did fall from a position into misfortune, though it certainly was not a high up position with the River People. You may say that Gollum does not meet his fate bravely, but he willingly accepted it in the end, not caring of his death, because he had what he wanted. He also, unlike Saruman, did accept his own character flaw, realizing that the Gollum half of him was evil, while Smeagol was good, though he could not control it completely. And obviously Gollum's choice to get the Ring back at all costs effected more lives than just his own, as the destruction of the Ring saved Middle-earth. And so, I would definitely say that Gollum is more of a tragic hero, rather than Saruman, which is what this thread seemed to be steering toward saying.

Anyway, I didn't mean to switch this into a "Gollum is a tragic hero" thread, but this is one of the first discussions I have been really interested in in a long time on this forum, so I thought I'd put my 2 cents in.

~Glorf/Maeglin


----------



## Gildor (Nov 4, 2004)

I would have to agree. Saruman never admits or seems to realize that he did anything wrong. In fact (also like Gollum) he seems to see his wretched state as a result of others doing wrongs to him, not the other way around. His actions do affect other people but never in a positive way, so in that respect he is essentially a villian.


----------



## Aglarband (Nov 6, 2004)

Gollum is simply pathetic. He does not want anything, and does not fall from anything because he actually wants it. He is a poor wretched creature who is met with the Ring and can simply not control himself. He could very well have been Degol, seeing as they both wanted the Ring alot. In this case I feel that Gollum is not the reason for his own demise, thus a character who deserves pitty, and not one who is tragic. 

To answer your question, no, I am not suggesting Saruman is a Tragic Hero, rather a Tragic Character, thus the title of the thread.


----------



## Maeglin (Nov 6, 2004)

If Gollum wants nothing, then neither does Saruman. They are both pursuing the same thing, the Ring. And by pursuing the Ring, they also both desire power (in general and over others), as both the Ring and Power go hand-in-hand. The reasoning that Saruman is tragic yet Gollum is not does not make any sense, as they are both after the same exact thing.


----------



## Húrin Thalion (Nov 7, 2004)

In my opinion, the tragic hero of this tale is Frodo.

But returning to tragic characters, everyone is tragic that follow Sauron from our perspective. Sauron thought that he was doing the right thing, that the best thing that could happen to Middle Earth was to be conquered by him. Either that, or Middle Earth was irrelevant to him, which it could not have been since he wantedit so badly.

Everybody are tragic, but in different ways. Sauron and Saruman because they did not use their powers to do good, other because they were hurt by the wars. Unless conflict in itself ceased existing, this state of things will remain.

Húrin Thalion


----------



## Astaldo (Nov 7, 2004)

Húrin Thalion said:


> Sauron thought that he was doing the right thing, that the best thing that could happen to Middle Earth was to be conquered by him.


I think Sauron did that because it was good for himself and for Middle-earth.My opinion is that he didn't give a damn for Middle-earth. He wanted only to be the ruler.


----------



## HLGStrider (Nov 9, 2004)

Húrin Thalion said:


> But returning to tragic characters, everyone is tragic that follow Sauron from our perspective. Sauron thought that he was doing the right thing, that the best thing that could happen to Middle Earth was to be conquered by him. Either that, or Middle Earth was irrelevant to him, which it could not have been since he wantedit so badly.


I don't agree with this logic. You can want something to do bad to it. Most murderers don't want good for their victims, same with most rapists and theives, and I would say most tyrants. Now, in our world you do find misguided tyrants who just want to advance a certain philosophy which they think is best, Lenin was one of these, but most of them just want power, this is Stalin. 

They just want to get what they can out of something, to sustain it, rape it if you will, and then abandon it when it is of no use to them.

Also, there seems to be a pleasure in hurting from these villians, sadism, if you will. That isn't misguided love. It is simply hate.


----------



## Astaldo (Nov 9, 2004)

HLGStrider said:


> Also, there seems to be a pleasure in hurting from these villians, sadism, if you will. That isn't misguided love. It is simply hate.


Exactly. I tink that all Sauron did was derived from hate of everything good.


----------



## Aglarband (Nov 9, 2004)

Maeglin said:


> If Gollum wants nothing, then neither does Saruman. They are both pursuing the same thing, the Ring. And by pursuing the Ring, they also both desire power (in general and over others), as both the Ring and Power go hand-in-hand. The reasoning that Saruman is tragic yet Gollum is not does not make any sense, as they are both after the same exact thing.


Not really, Saruman's tragic flaw is his knowledge and his lust for power. He is brought down by his need for the Ring not the Ring itself, while Gollum could simply be any average Joe who stumbles across the Ring. A tragic hero brings upon themself their downfall, Gollum has no real tragic flaw, he just had bad luck, which isn't a tragic flaw. Saruman never saw the Ring, so he brought his fall upon himself, while Gollum did not.


----------



## HLGStrider (Nov 10, 2004)

You are saying, then, that Gollum had not free will in the matter and any man, person, being would have fallen just as quickly?


I think that doesn't fit with the Tolkien universe or other experiences about the ring. Yes, the ring will eventually corrupt everyone, but there is never a time when Sam attempted to strangle Frodo for the ring and Smeagol sprang on Deagol after only seeing the ring for a moment and having never touched it. Many people were in the same proximity to the ring that Smeagol was for much longer without attempting to steal it. I would say it took Boromir several weeks to be corrupted by it, even though he knew that it was powerful from the begining and had good reasons to want it. Smeagol only knew it was pretty and after a matter of seconds was willing to commit murder to gain it.


----------



## Astaldo (Nov 10, 2004)

In my opinion this is because Smeagol was a bad Hobbit before the corrupting of the Ring.


----------



## Eledhwen (Nov 10, 2004)

Tolkien said that it was the 'mean spirited' who were quickly enslaved by the ring. The very sight of it drove Gollum to murder, but Bilbo, when he had Gollum at his mercy, chose instead to risk his own survival by leaping over him instead of slaying him. Gandalf said that was why he took so little hurt from the ring - because he began with pity and mercy.

So, is being 'mean spirited' something that can be avoided, or is it just the personality one is saddled with? If it is the latter, then one can view the mean spirited as tragic characters. If it is the former, then there is an element of choice beyond all the deluding and addictive powers of the Ring.

As soon as Saruman began to study Ringcraft, he began the downward slide, because the master Ringsmith was Sauron, and Saruman would have to study Morgoth's lieutenant's craft closely. Maybe he kept the discovery of the Palantir quiet so he could take a peek Sauronwards to see if he could pick up anything on the quiet. It would be quite within character - did he not scoff at Gandalf's love of pipeweed, only to secretly try it and find he liked it?

Yes, it seems to me that Saruman's desire for secret knowledge was at the heart of his downfall. Could he have come clean, though, and shared the knowledge? Or was such disclosure simply beyond his ability? And if it was beyond his ability, how much was that due to his own choices and how much to his innate personality? Was he one of the ones who was swayed by the discord of Melkor, but chose not to follow him, but still envied him?

Wouldn't I like to know!


----------



## Húrin Thalion (Nov 11, 2004)

It is misguided love, since the destruction has a cause. They are amused by it, and the problem is that they cannot control their will, they will not fight their impulses to torture. They don't because the victims are irrelevant to them, the victim's life and health means less to them than a short time of pleasure. The highest function a human can fill from an orcs perspective, is to be a helpless victim and object of their malice. It is their perception of good that is wrong, since they obviously think the elves are evil. 

I think Saruman was destined to fail, in a passage from the Unfinished tales that talks about the Valar choosing their messengers to Middle Earth, Saruman is chosen by Aulë (the Vala, "angel" of handcraft, mining and smithying) and seems to have pretty high thoughts of himself. And indeed he fell to his pride, since he thought that he could master the Ring and all of Middle Earth, seeing this as the best option. He loved the objects of his craft to much, he settled in Isengard and greedily guarded it's secrets, named himself Ringmaker and wanted to create a mighty empire.

Do we see a slight anti-materialism from Tolkien's side here? Aulë created but gave freely to everybody, had his joy in making but not keeping. The two evil powers at the time of LotR, Sauron and Saruman were both the apprentices of Aulë who fell to the darkness. Also, for the Silmarillion readers, didn't Fëanor fall when he refused to share his treasures with otehrs, and locked them up in Formenos?


----------



## HLGStrider (Nov 15, 2004)

HT, it seems in your world view no such thing as hate exists then, only misguided love. We could argue whether this is the case in this world or not (Probably futilely), but I think I can say without any doubt that it is not the case in Tolkien's world. In Tolkien's world hate does exist, and with a caustic potency.

There are creatures in Tolkien who live to destroy not because they misguidedly love something but because they simply hate it. Here and there we have more nuanced characters (Gollum), but the main forces of evil are simply that, pure evil. They are deprived of the ability to love. Some, such as I would say Orcs, have never possessed it in their current form. Others, such as Sauron, lost it due to corruption. We can argue that Sauron is not totally corrupted, but I still think it was hate and the desire to oppress that drove him on, not misguidedly wanting to love something in the wrong way.

Definitely greed is a major component in Tolkien's view of evil.


----------

