![]() |
|
FAQ | Members List | Calendar |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 |
EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED
DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,176
|
I can see your point, bmilder, but Saruman is, in my opinion, still out for himself, and the whole "allegiance with Sauron" may be shown, in the next film, to be the true treachery it is.
Saruman betrayed everyone, and I had taken from the books that Saruman HAD actually pledged his allegiance to Sauron, through the palantir of Orthanc, with the specific pupose of betraying that allegiance whilst buying himself time and freedom to do as he would concerning the search for the One Ring wihtout Sauron's active resistance. Recall, for instance, Pippin's words, relating what Sauron told him after being seen by the Dark One in the palantir, after telling Sauron he was a hobbit: "But he said, 'Wait a moment! We shall meet again soon. Tell Saruman that this dainty is not for him. I will send for it at once. Do you understand? Just say that!' " This, to me, seems to point out a subservient role for Saruman in the mind of Sauron, indicating that through previous conversations Saruman HAD accepted a role as a Servant of the Dark One, and not as a rival. What are your thoughts?
__________________
"...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160. |
![]() |
![]() |