Saruman:
Secondary Villains, Modern Politicians, and Magical Voices
As always, spoiler warnings...
Consider Saruman. In Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, the Istari Saruman the White is the secondary villain to the clearly more dangerous, powerful, and evil Sauron. He has the potential to cause great harm to our heroes, but his ultimate ambition (to usurp Sauron himself) is shown to be far beyond his abilities. While both are Maia, they are not equals, and we know throughout that Saruman is not the main threat. But he is a threat. He has real power, and he is to be taken seriously, particularly as he complicates the already complicated task ahead for our heroes.
Tolkien does something extraordinary with his two primary villains in The Lord of the Rings, however. He keeps them off-stage. Sauron is never seen (and despite the movie's depiction of Sauron, he is corporeal, as was witnessed by Gollum: "Yes. He only has four [fingers] on his black hand, but they are enough."). Meanwhile, Saruman is introduced in the second chapter of Book Two, The Council of Elrond in flashback, as told by Gandalf, but it is not until over 300 pages later, in the second-to-last chapter in Book Three (The Voice of Saruman), that he makes a physical appearance. What does this presentation of Saruman achieve for the author and the reader?
On the surface, Saruman's character fits what are two stereotypes of much genre (and some non-genre) fiction. One is the apparent powerful ally, often a leader on the good guys' team, who turns against them unexpectedly. The other is the sweet-talking baddy, the one who uses elocution, logic, and, often, a fair visage to mislead our hero. Since both types often have similar temperaments, it is not uncommon for these two types to be embodied in one character, as they are with Saruman.
These are the villains who seem fairer and feel fouler, as Frodo observes of Sauron's spies. And herein lies the rub. In presenting a character of this type, the reader (or viewer) is typically much quicker to suss out the truth about the villain than the characters. Part of this is our prior experiences. While Tolkien did not invent these types - they are as least as old as the snake who tempted Eve - those who followed after him certainly overused them to their detriment. (And some of that overuse must be attributable to the enormous influence Tolkien has had on the fantasy and science fiction genres.) We are often wise to this character's ruse and may even be looking for it.
But even if we were not on the lookout for this kind of villian, there are at least two other barriers to successfully surprising the reader/viewer. One is that it is terribly difficult to have us come under the same spell the hero apparently is under. It is impossible to put together words that, on their own, have the quasi-magical (or fully magical) ability to fool the listener/reader in real life like they do the hero. It is even impossible to do this in a movie. How to convey the impact of a big personal speech on the hero without using an unusual presentation? If we just watch two people talking, we are not going to be under the spell that comes even when a non-magical powerful and/or charismatic person confides in us (or just focuses their full attention on us) in real life. But if the director uses unusual means to convey a (magical or non-magical) charm, we are alerted that something is going on, that the hero is experiencing some impact on their perception. And yet, because we remain on the outside, we have a very different experience than we would if we were the participant. (Think of the way movies typically convey the first-person view of someone who has been drugged.) Whatever effect is used, it inevitably tips us off that something is amiss, that this fair-seeming character may be rather foul after all.
Meanwhile, on the written page, we can be told of the effect a person's speech is having on the hero, but the simple act of telling us this will do far more than just arouse our suspicions - it will confirm them!
The other barrier is related to this first one but shifts the focus from us to the character(s) being influenced. If the hero can be taken in by this villain, but we are not likely to be so fooled, then we must surmise that the hero is just not that bright. This is the classical case where we might feel the impulse to break the fourth wall, and warn the hero, "Don't believe him," or "She's lying to you!" If our hero is so smart and wise, such a great leader and judge of character, why are they so easily taken in? We can have clueless heroes, of course, but that trait is often contradictory to the character the author is otherwise trying to build.
As a result, if we believe our hero is otherwise wise and not easily duped, we can be left with no good explanation for the hero's belief in the lying villian except that the hero is under a 'spell of words' (literally or metaphorically).
We are therefore able to see the signs of the villain's duplicity, either directly because something about the scene tips us off (or the author simply tells us), or indirectly because the hero's reaction does not make a lot of sense otherwise.
All of this suggests that the best thing to do might be to simply put it all out in the open and not try to hide that this seeming ally is a traitor. That ploy, however, takes away the opportunity to spring a plot twist on us.
We believe Saruman has the ability to charm others, convince them, and obfuscate not because we see him do it directly (at first), but because Gandalf tells us, and that convinces us. We do not get a transcript of the last meeting of the White Council, when Saruman hid his true intentions from the others. Instead, during the Council of Elrond, Gandalf reports on this meeting, saying things like, "Saruman dissuaded us," and "He concealed his mind." We know, by this time, that Gandalf is wise, so if he was taken in, Saruman must have great powers of deception.
Consider one the most famous examples of this type of villain: Palpatine/The Emperor in the Star Wars movies. In the original three movies (Episodes IV - VI) we are told Darth Vader was corrupted to the Dark Side of the Force by the Emperor, and we can easily take that on face value as fact. The Emperor is off-stage for a long time (not appearing until Episode V, and then only as a hologram), which ends up enhancing his power in our minds. When we actually "meet" him, in Episode VI, where we see him attempt to turn Luke, it is long after we've accepted Vader's corruption by the Emperor as the truth.
Like Saruman, there is a long gap between knowing about the Emperor and what he did, and actually meeting him. He still has to live up to what has been built up in our mind, but we are not likely to revise our opinion of his ability to make Anakin into Vader - the proof of his abilities is right in front of us in the person of Darth Vader.
In contrast, we actually see Palpatine's slow courtship of Anakin in the next trilogy of films, Episodes I - III. If we have seen the earlier movies, we know where this is going, but regardless of our knowledge about the outcome, we have to be convinced in the process by which Anakin is turned into Vader. Too often, however, Anakin comes off as easily fooled or just not very savvy. What mere words can change a person's fundamental nature? To turn Anakin into a mass murderer, other forces must be at play, but if Palpatine is manipulating Anakin in unseen ways, using the power of the Force, we are not shown this through visual effects or special audio processing. Frankly, the change Anakin undergoes is akin to what might happen when someone is indoctrinated into a cult, but that usually requires the victim to be isolated and highly controlled in a way Anakin is not. (And it would be an unusually small cult.)
Palpatine also fools the Senate and the Jedi. Is it wrong to come to the conclusion that everyone is just as stupid and naive as Anakin? It seems to me that either we decide there is no magic involved (and simply suspend our belief), or we must presume there is more going on, that when Palpatine speaks he is using The Force to affect others' perceptions. If it is the latter, we would benefit from an explanation of the magic involved. Tolkien's description of Saruman's voice (in The Voice of Saruman) is the kind of information we need to explain Palpatine's abilities:
| Those who listened unwarily to that voice could seldom report the words that they heard; and if they did, they wondered, for little power remained in them. Mostly they remembered only that it was a delight to hear the voice speaking, all that it said seemed wise and reasonable, and desire awoke in them by swift agreement to seem wise themselves. |
Here Tolkien also sums up one of the points made above, that the words themselves can never convey to us what they convey to the characters under their spell. He goes on:
| For many, the sound of his voice alone was enough to hold them enthralled; but for those whom it conquered the spell endured when they were far away; and ever they heard that soft voice whispering and urging them. But none were unmoved; none rejected its pleas and its commands without an effort of mind and will. |
"For many." So, not everyone falls under the spell and certainly not us because the power is in the voice itself, which we (as readers) cannot hear. Some it conquers, and most notable among the conquered is Wormtongue. Anakin Skywalker is no Wormtongue, but Palpatine's words seems to have the same effect on Anakin as Saruman's have on Wormtongue; so while the basic nature of the spell may be the same in Star Wars and The Lord of the Ring, it clearly connot be identical.
While Saruman's power is in his voice, his fall from grace is due to a set of sins that repeat throughout Tolkien's legendarium. Saruman is prideful, not humble. He pursues secret knowledge in secret, not sharing his thoughts with others and certainly not taking their advice. He embraces the progress of technology over an understanding of the natural world (much to his misfortune when it comes to the Ents). He wants to shape things to his will. He loves too well the work of his own hands (his army of Uruk-hai, his multi-colored robes, his homemade ring, etc.).
So, while we can view Saruman through the lens of the stereotypes of the "leader who betrays" and the "fair-sounding manipulator," he is typical of Tolkien's fallen characters such as Denethor, Al-Pharazon, Feanor, and Morgoth.
Specifically in regard to Saruman's voice, though, consider the way Tolkien writes it. As Tom Shippey points out (in J. R. R. Tolkien: Author of the Century), Saruman's way of speaking is the most modern of all of the characters in The Lord of the Rings and is a very particular kind of modern English. "Saruman, indeed, talks exactly like too many politicians...The end justifies the means, in other words, a sentiment the twentieth century has learned to be wary of...He is on the road to 'doublethink' (which Orwell was to invent, or describe, at almost exactly the same time" [as Tolkien was writing]). It is no mere chance that George Lucas made his villain, Palpatine, a politician. Tolkien is not so literal, but the connection is clearly there.
The best thing I can recommend you do at this point is read everything Saruman says in the chapter The Voice of Saruman. Here is one example, from his first overture to Theoden.
| Why have you not come before, and as a friend? Much have I desired to see you, mightiest king of western lands, and especially in these latter years, to save you from the unwise and evil counsels that beset you! Is it yet too late? Despite the injuries that have been done to me, in which the men of Rohan, alas! have had some part, still I would save you, and deliver you from the ruin that draws nigh inevitably, if you ride upon this road which you have taken. Indeed I alone can aid you now. |
This is masterful, there is no doubt, but the reader can easily see right through Saruman's manipulations. No matter how perfectly Tolkien scripts Saruman, characters like these cannot jump off the page in any way similar to the way they appear to those in the story. There is no way to cast a spell over the reader so that we swiftly agree that all that he says is "wise and reasonable." We know too much, and we can also step out of time and read a line like, "Despite the injuries that have been done to me, in which the men of Rohan, alas! have had some part" coldly. Who was the aggressor? Saruman clearly brought these "injuries" by the Rohirrim on himself. He is speaking to a man whose son was killed in this war - by Saruman's troops - what audacity!
Later Saruman goes even further, into full-on doublethink.
| The friendship of Saruman and the power of Orthanc cannot be lightly thrown aside, whatever grievances, real or fancied, may lie behind... But my lord of Rohan, am I to be called a murderer, because valiant men have fallen in battle? If you go to war, needlessly, for I did not desire it, then men will be slain. But if I am murderer on that account, then all of the House of Eorl is stained with murder.. Yet with some [with whom they have fought] they have afterwards made peace, none the worse for being politic... Shall we have peace and friendship, you and I? |
It is deliciously manipulative, pure rhetorical finesse. And yet, the riders of the Mark who hear Saruman are completely taken in, ready to cheer when they think Theoden is going to agree with Saruman.
Tolkien has told us this would happen. The surprise is that Theoden has the power to resist. He has trouble doing so, but we do not doubt he is an intelligent, experienced, valiant leader. We believe in Saruman's powers both because we have knowledge of his capacity for evil (we know nearly all his plans, even though they have, by this time, collapsed), we have knowledge of the power of his voice (we've been forewarned about it in some detail), and we have these masterful lines Tolkien gives him.
But it is Tolkien's highly unusual presentation of Saruman that makes this work. First, we meet him in flashback, then he is off-stage for a long time, then we see him through the actions of his subordinates, and only after his forces are defeated, do we see him and hear him in person.
- At the Council of Elrond, we learn from Gandalf that Saruman has betrayed the White Counsel, wants the Ring to rule Middle-Earth in place of Sauron, has explored expanding his own power (by making a ring, changing his robe color), and successfully captured Gandalf for a time.
- The path of the Fellowship is affected by Saruman s defection, leading them to try to cross over Caradhras to avoid Isengard, and ultimately go through Moria. (Note that, unlike the movie, there is no indication in the book that Saruman controls the weather on Caradhras. This is one of those things where Tolkien very deliberately leaves us without a definitive answer. It is clear, however, that the large flock of "crows of large size" the fellowship encounters in Hollin are spies for Saruman.)
- His Uruk-hai lead the forces which capture the (wrong) halflings and kill Boromir above the Rauros Falls. This is the first time his actions enter the story in the present, as the tale is told. We get confirmation, largely through Pippen's and Merry's experience, that he is in league with Sauron, but is planning to betray him.
- We learn he has been in open war with Rohan, and that his forces have attacked civilians.
- We learn he has held Rohan in his sway by controlling Theoden through his advisor Wormtongue.
- We learn a little about his past from the Ents, as well as the state of things at Isengard now ("great industry" and "many trees being felled").
- We witness his forces ("ten thousand at least") attacking at Helm's Deep. Then later we find out from Merry about the emptying of Isengard, when these forces went off to the battle.
While the defeat of the orcs carrying Pippen and Merry, and the expulsion of Wormtongue from the Golden Hall are setbacks, things only turn disastrous with the utter defeat of his forces at Helm's Deep and the ruin of Isengard. Both show Saruman's inability to account for the unexpected, particularly those "wood-demons," the Ents. There is still the slow journey of the company from Helm s Deep to Isengard, and the meetings and exchanges of information in the Flotsam and Jetsam chapter before a small party finally goes to meet him. Even then Tolkien pauses before Saruman first in-person appearance so that the narrator can add detail to Gandalf's warnings about the power of his voice.
It is a most unusually long delay, but the upshot is that when we finally meet Saruman and hear him speak, there is no mystery about his motivations or character. There is, however, much mystery about what he is like as a person and how he will react to what has happened. He is the main antagonist of Book Three, but appears only in The Voice of Saruman chapter (aside from his extremely brief, silent nocturnal appearance on the fringes of Fangorn, an appearance Gimli can't seem to stop talking about but no one else much worries about). I will argue that Tolkien's script for Saruman is perfection. Read it closely, and out loud, and you may agree.
As a result of the delay in presenting Saruman, we are in a much different place then we might otherwise be when we meet this character. Imagine if his betrayal was unknown to the others, and instead of Gandalf riding to Isengard alone on Radagast's message, it was the entire Fellowship arriving at Isengard, with both the Fellowship and us meeting Saruman in person for the first time, fully expecting him to be an ally, only to have him betray the Fellowship. How to portray his voice as convincing (to at least some of the Fellowship) in its deception? It seems impossible to do well.
When viewed coldly, Saruman is quite a failure. He lets Gandalf escape without getting any information about The Ring. His insecurity leads him to secretly horde pipeweed in imitation of Gandalf. His orcs get the wrong hobbits. He knows about Ents but fails to account for them in his plans. He uses a palantir to communicate with Sauron, thinking he can control that relationship. He has a mole in the advisor's seat in Rohan, and yet Rohan's forces slaughter the orc troop he sent out to get the ringbearer. He sends all his forces to one battle, which they lose, without providing proper leadership for them. (Why did he not lead them? Or at least put some - likely human - general in charge?) His magic voice fails to sway Theoden at the steps of Orthanc, and he seems to have a complete lack of intel on Gandalf at this point - he is unaware that Gandalf died in Moria and that he has been born again as Gandalf the White (AKA Gandalf 2.0). He cannot even keep his thrall from tossing out what might be the most precious treasure in Orthanc - and quite possibly trying to use it as a weapon aimed at Saruman's own head.
But we do not know these things when we first hear of Saruman's deception at the Council of Elrond, so despite our hindsight, Saruman represents a serious threat throughout Books Two and Three. He has a real impact. He delays the Wise's actions, several times, much earlier, before even the events of The Hobbit take place. He further delays Gandalf by capturing him, no small feat. His troops kill Boromir and do kidnap some halflings. Wormtongue does get Theoden to imprison Eomer and shut down any opposition to Saruman - for a time. His forces inflict real damage on Rohan, and they would have won the battle at Helm's Deep if not for the unexpected help of the huorns.
And then there are his final actions, in The Scouring of the Shire. After taking so long to bring him into the story in person, Tolkien has another long period where Saruman disappears (for nearly 400 pages this time) only to return in an unexpected way. His impact on the Hobbit's hometown is real enough, but there is an extreme pettiness in his need for revenge against the weakest who wronged him. He can't extract revenge on the strong (the Ents, Gandalf, the Elves, Rohan), but nothing is beneath him, so it is the Hobbits and particularly Frodo at whom he lashes out.
| You made me laugh, you hobbit-lordlings, riding along with all those great people, so secure and so well-pleased with your little selves. You thought you had done very well out of it all, and could now just amble back and have a nice quiet time in the country. Saruman's home could be all wrecked, and he could be turned out, but no one could touch yours... "Well," thought I, "I will teach them a lesson. One ill turn deserves another." It would have been a sharper lesson, if only you had given me a little more time and more Men. Still I have already done much that you will find it hard to mend or undo in your lives. |
Note that Saruman never expected his ploy to last - it's just about maximum damage in the time he has, all to get back at someone. This is completely in keeping with his character, and also echoes Shippey's comparison of Saruman to certain politicians. There is certainly at least one contemporary example who revels in petty vindictiveness for vindictiveness-sake, and who also stated (in slightly different words), "I alone can aid you now."
Saruman remains a thoroughly modern character, even decades after his invention. He is also far more than just a distraction from the primary enemy, as can sometimes be the case with secondary villains. Tolkien's unusual presentation ensures he remains believable, even as he possesses a power that is so difficult to depict.