Though I think that the main focus of much of his writing is not necessarily evil, but the folly of evil and those struggling against it. This again accounts for the greater level of personalization and characterization of Saruman and Gollum. Tolkien was most interested in “the fall” rather than the state of evil. Conversly, he dealt greatly with the notion of salvation and conversion from evil. This is true for both the “detailed” villains…the protagonists are always offering the olive branch…sometimes to be rebuffed, but in others to lead to conversion, if only temporary.

One other thing to think on is this: Saruman, as a maia always desired order and precision. He saw the way to victory through control, through knowledge, rather than human will. This ultimately, a character flaw, leads to his final fall…furthered by his unyielding pride.

I’ve always seen Saruman as the true villain of The Lord of the Rings, rather than Sauron. Sauron always struck me as too impersonal, more a force of malignant nature than a proper villain. Saruman, however, is different. He has a personality of sorts. He sought power to oppose evil, but forgot his reasons for seeking power in the first place once he began to achieve it. He lost sight of his original ideals, and his original purpose: to lead the people of Middle-Earth against Sauron by inspiring them and offering wisdom, rather than taking command himself. Saruman spent too long staring into an abyss that stared back at him, and became the monster he had set out to oppose.

I wonder if Saruman himself fully understood what he had done. I’m not sure he does, since Tolkien never really delves too deeply into the motivations of his antagonists.

Nice blog!