Sauron and Saruman – the Tragedy of Good Intentions

[Aldarion]

Sauron and Saruman – the Tragedy of Good Intentions

Unlike Morgoth and his existential nihilism, Sauron and Saruman are both a case study of how good intentions lead to evil. Both Sauron and Saruman are the Maiar of Aule. This may in fact be the roo…

fantasyview.wordpress.com

Unlike Morgoth and his existential nihilism, Sauron and Saruman are both a case study of how good intentions lead to evil.

Both Sauron and Saruman are the Maiar of Aule. This may in fact be the root origin of their mistake: the tendency to look at the world, society and even individuals as nothing but machinery that operates according to strict and easily understandable laws. By this logic, anything that causes disruption or chaos, anything unpredictable at all, is by its very nature a mistake. Because chaos causes harm, pain, and even destruction. It can lead to creation of many things, but also to their destruction; it can lead to progress, but also to regression. In order to remove the pain, inefficiencies and “mistakes”, to create safe and productive life, chaos must be replaced by order.

Natural conclusion of this logic is that the free will itself is a mistake. Free will creates chaos, inefficiencies and mistakes, because people are not the same. Thus, in order to create this perfectly functioning machine, free will itself has to be removed and subdued – and this is what both Sauron and then Saruman set out to do.

 

[Finchbearer]

Interesting.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Oh! Politicians!

Sauron and Saruman – the Tragedy of Good Intentions

Unlike Morgoth and his existential nihilism, Sauron and Saruman are both a case study of how good intentions lead to evil. Both Sauron and Saruman are the Maiar of Aule. This may in fact be the roo…

fantasyview.wordpress.com

Unlike Morgoth and his existential nihilism, Sauron and Saruman are both a case study of how good intentions lead to evil.

Both Sauron and Saruman are the Maiar of Aule. This may in fact be the root origin of their mistake: the tendency to look at the world, society and even individuals as nothing but machinery that operates according to strict and easily understandable laws. By this logic, anything that causes disruption or chaos, anything unpredictable at all, is by its very nature a mistake. Because chaos causes harm, pain, and even destruction. It can lead to creation of many things, but also to their destruction; it can lead to progress, but also to regression. In order to remove the pain, inefficiencies and “mistakes”, to create safe and productive life, chaos must be replaced by order.

Natural conclusion of this logic is that the free will itself is a mistake. Free will creates chaos, inefficiencies and mistakes, because people are not the same. Thus, in order to create this perfectly functioning machine, free will itself has to be removed and subdued – and this is what both Sauron and then Saruman set out to do.

 

[Queshire]

Hmm.... An interesting perspective. It falls a bit due to pop culture Nietzche though.

 

[pmmg]

I appreciate your well thought out articles. And that you put your cards on the table. I dont know if Tolkien meant all that but its an interesting investigation into the nature of the evil of the two.

 

[Queshire]

Considering the times he lived through I'm almost certain Tolkien didn't mean all that, though religion was a big enough part of his life that seeing it influence his writing beyond the obvious is unsurprising.

 

[Rexenm]

i am going to critique, because it is a blog post.

Unlike Morgoth and his existential nihilism, Sauron and Saruman are both a case study of how good intentions lead to evil.
Much in the ways of love.
Both Sauron and Saruman are the Maiar of Aule.
I have no idea what this is?
This may in fact be the root origin of their mistake: the tendency to look at the world, society and even individuals as nothing but machinery that operates according to strict and easily understandable laws.
Sometimes there is a mistake, sometimes not.
By this logic, anything that causes disruption or chaos, anything unpredictable at all, is by its very nature a mistake.
I think to myself about writers, and concede that at least he had direction.
Because chaos causes harm, pain, and even destruction. It can lead to creation of many things, but also to their destruction; it can lead to progress, but also to regression. In order to remove the pain, inefficiencies and “mistakes”, to create safe and productive life, chaos must be replaced by {chaos}.


Natural conclusion of this logic is that the free will itself is a mistake. Free will creates chaos, inefficiencies and mistakes, because people are not the same. Thus, in order to create this perfectly functioning machine, free will itself has to be removed and subdued – and this is what both Sauron and then Saruman set out to do.
Who would hobbits be in this scenario? They may have long lives, they may give gifts on their own birthdays, they may not traditionally wear shoes, but at least they are short, and perhaps because of this they are endearing.

I read the rest, it felt like I was on a bit of a seesaw or swing chair. Do you think hobbits sleep in four post beds?

 

[Aldarion]

Both Sauron and Saruman are the Maiar of Aule.

Maiar are basically angels. Aule is a Valar, which is an Archangel.

Sometimes there is a mistake, sometimes not.

It usually is. There are rules and laws, but they often get buckled.

Simply because of this:

Chaos theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Who would hobbits be in this scenario? They may have long lives, they may give gifts on their own birthdays, they may not traditionally wear shoes, but at least they are short, and perhaps because of this they are endearing.

Uh, what?

 

[Prince of Spires]

I'm not sure Tolkien argues that they are both good intentions leading to evil. He very strongly hints that Saruman may well have come to Middle Earth with a desire to set up a realm of his own. And that Sauron was initially seduced by Morgoth, but later had similar desires. To rule and to conquer. Not so much out of good intentions, but simply because they had a will to dominate.

I'd say more that Lord of the Rings is a struggle between tradition and technology. All forms of evil destroy the lands and replace the simple rural life with technology and science. It's seen in the shire, where the trees are cut down and the simple mill is replaced by a factory that throws out black smoke even though it's too big for what the shire needs. Most of Saruman's magic is some form of modern technology or explosives. And so on.

And Tolkien didn't think Frodo failed. In one of his letters he specifically mentions he thinks Frodo succeeded in his quest to take the ring to mount Doom. And that getting there was all that could be asked of any mortal. And he succeeds because of the same reasons that Gandalf is the only successful wizard. They both wish to serve instead of dominate.

 

[Aldarion]

I'm not sure Tolkien argues that they are both good intentions leading to evil. He very strongly hints that Saruman may well have come to Middle Earth with a desire to set up a realm of his own. And that Sauron was initially seduced by Morgoth, but later had similar desires. To rule and to conquer. Not so much out of good intentions, but simply because they had a will to dominate.

Sauron however was seduced by Morgoth in the first place because he hated friction and wanted order. And because friction is caused also by free will, there is no way to remove friction without removing free will.

This is what Morgoth's Ring says on the topic:
“Sauron had never reached this stage of nihilistic madness. He did not object to the existence of the world, so long as he could do what he liked with it. He still had the relics of positive purposes, that descended from the good of the nature in which he began: it had been his virtue (and therefore also the cause of his fall, and of his relapse) that he loved order and co-ordination, and disliked all confusion and wasteful friction. (It was the apparent will and power of Melkor to effect his designs quickly and masterfully that had first attracted Sauron to him.)"

As for Saruman, I do not recall where that is hinted at. I only recall statement that Saruman was willing to resist Sauron so long as that resistance was led by Saruman himself, but even that speaks of Saruman that was well on his way to fall from grace, and long after he had come to Middle-Earth.

I'd say more that Lord of the Rings is a struggle between tradition and technology. All forms of evil destroy the lands and replace the simple rural life with technology and science. It's seen in the shire, where the trees are cut down and the simple mill is replaced by a factory that throws out black smoke even though it's too big for what the shire needs. Most of Saruman's magic is some form of modern technology or explosives. And so on.

That is certainly an aspect of it, but reducing it just to that is wrong.

Tolkien's writing is like an onion: it has layers. Certainly there is struggle between tradition and technology, but also between Catholic and modernist/Nietzschean morality, between liberty and tyranny, between localism and imperialism, between optimism and cynicism...

And Tolkien didn't think Frodo failed. In one of his letters he specifically mentions he thinks Frodo succeeded in his quest to take the ring to mount Doom. And that getting there was all that could be asked of any mortal. And he succeeds because of the same reasons that Gandalf is the only successful wizard. They both wish to serve instead of dominate.

'Yes,' said Frodo. 'But do you remember Gandalf's words: Even Gollum may have something yet to do? But for him, Sam, I could not have destroyed the Ring. The Quest would have been in vain, even at the bitter end. So let us forgive him! For the Quest is achieved, and now all is over. I am glad you are here with me. Here at the end of all things, Sam.'

Tolkien also outright says that Frodo failed in several letters:

“The Failure of Frodo” | The Sheila Variations

No, Frodo “failed”. It is possible that once the ring was destroyed he had little recollection of the last scene. But one must face the fact: the power of Evil in the world is not finally resistible by incarnate creatures, however “good”; and the Writer of the Story is not one of us.

By chance, I have just had another letter regarding the failure of Frodo. Very few seem even to have observed it. But following the logic of the plot, it was clearly inevitable, as an event. And surely it is a more significant and real event than a mere “fairy story” ending in which the hero is indomitable? It is possible for the good, even the saintly, to be subjected to a power of evil which is too great for them to overcome – in themselves. In this case the cause (not the “hero”) was triumphant, because by the exercise of pity, mercy, and forgiveness of injury, a situation was produced in which all was redressed and disaster averted.

 

[Prince of Spires]

Tolkien also outright says that Frodo failed in several letters:
“The Failure of Frodo” | The Sheila Variations

In the same way he also says:

I do not think that Frodo's was a moral failure. At the last moment the pressure of the Ring would reach its maximum – impossible, I should have said, for any one to resist, certainly after long possession, months of increasing torment, and when starved and exhausted. Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely (as an instrument of Providence) and had produced a situation in which the object of his quest could be achieved.
....
His real contract was only to do what he could, to try to find a way, and to go as far on the road as his strength of mind and body allowed. He did that. I do not myself see that the breaking of his mind and will under demonic pressure after torment was any more a moral failure than the breaking of his body would have been


-Tolkien, letter #246

As in, Frodo did all that could be expected of a mortal being in getting the ring as far as he did. Yes, he failed to cast the ring into the fires. In that sense he failed. But that was never his mission. His task was to get it there.

 

[Rexenm]

How about when Gollum and My Precious talk to each other. One is clearly an incarnation of the ring, yet not, and Gollum was originally effected by the same thing. So what is the realistic approach, if they are clearly both imagined?

 

[Aldarion]

In the same way he also says:


As in, Frodo did all that could be expected of a mortal being in getting the ring as far as he did. Yes, he failed to cast the ring into the fires. In that sense he failed. But that was never his mission. His task was to get it there.

No, it was made quite clear that Frodo's mission was to cast the Ring into fire:

‘Your small fire, of course, would not melt even ordinary gold. This Ring has already passed through it unscathed, and even unheated. But there is no smith’s forge in this Shire that could change it at all. Not even the anvils and furnaces of the Dwarves could do that. It has been said that dragon-fire could melt and consume the Rings of Power, but there is not now any dragon left on earth in which the old fire is hot enough; nor was there ever any dragon, not even Ancalagon the Black, who could have harmed the One Ring, the Ruling Ring, for that was made by Sauron himself. ‘There is only one way: to find the Cracks of Doom in the depths of Orodruin, the Fire-mountain, and cast the Ring in there, if you really wish to destroy it, to put it beyond the grasp of the Enemy for ever.’ ‘I do really wish to destroy it!’ cried Frodo. ‘Or, well, to have it destroyed. I am not made for perilous quests. I wish I had never seen the Ring! Why did it come to me? Why was I chosen?’

At this the stranger, Boromir, broke in. ‘So that is what became of the Ring!’ he cried. ‘If ever such a tale was told in the South, it has long been forgotten. I have heard of the Great Ring of him that we do not name; but we believed that it perished from the world in the ruin of his first realm. Isildur took it! That is tidings indeed.’ ‘Alas! yes,’ said Elrond. ‘Isildur took it, as should not have been. It should have been cast then into Orodruin’s fire nigh at hand where it was made. But few marked what Isildur did. He alone stood by his father in that last mortal contest; and by Gil-galad only Cı´rdan stood, and I. But Isildur would not listen to our counsel. ‘ ‘‘This I will have as weregild for my father, and my brother,’’ he said; and therefore whether we would or no, he took it to treasure it. But soon he was betrayed by it to his death; and so it is named in the North Isildur’s Bane. Yet death maybe was better than what else might have befallen him.

Frodo only succeeded in the end through the Grace of God. But his own quest to destroy the Ring was indeed a failure.

How about when Gollum and My Precious talk to each other. One is clearly an incarnation of the ring, yet not, and Gollum was originally effected by the same thing. So what is the realistic approach, if they are clearly both imagined?

I always interpreted that as a split personality, the Ring-dominated Gollum against remains of the pre-Ring Smeagol.

So they are not imagined.

 

[Rexenm]

So they are not imagined

Oh, right, Smeagol