[lathspell]

Well, Bethberry, here's my opinion on things.
I hope you've got some time, it's quite long.


Is Saruman morally weak but closely drawn?

Yes, Saruman is morally weak, but he hasn’t always been like that. It all began with the study of the Rings of Power: learning about them and their powers and at last desiring that thing which he so long studied, the One Ring. He lusted for it and for a kingdom of his own, yet I don’t think he had either a “tragic virtue” or a “tragic flaw”. He made a tragic flaw, yet none other could know that he was making one, for no one knew that he was morally weak, except maybe the Ones on the High Seats of Aman.

Are there any “weasels” in LotR?

Yes, there are characters in LotR who don’t pay heed to the consequences of their actions. Except from Orcs, who intentionally do or do not pay heed, Bill Ferny is an example of a “weasel”. He does everything as long as it is for is own profit, but doesn’t (or won’t) see what it does to others. He spies for enemies, works for Saruman as a ruffian; thinking himself great and invulnerable. Yet when you seem to win from him he shrieks and runs. He is a “weasel”.

Who are the foils in LotR?

How many characters face dramatic vulnerability?

There are some characters that seem to face such a thing. ‘Onewhitetree’ already answered with mentioning Eowyn, yet I thought of Frodo in the first place. Both of them are in great pain. Eowyn because she saw all she loved fall into ruin and darkness. Frodo because of his quest and leaving all that he loved to save it. Yet in my eyes there is one more that faces dramatic vulnerability, though not in LotR, but in the Silmarillion. This is Turin, son of Hurin, his life was one great row of happy times ending very sad. Beginning in his childhood, when the Easterlings gain control of their lands.
Now that I think of it… Frodo, Eowyn and Turin (all of them facing vulnerability) are remembered as heroes and men of honour, for all of them did great deeds: Frodo and the Ring, Eowyn and the Witchking, Turin and Glaurung.

How are the characters traits?

I don’t quite get this question. Ain’t this otherwise for every other character, and ain’t that why they are so well-drawn?

Proportions of weakness and strength

I think the proportions are devided in a good manner. It’s a question of race, gender and size. If you ask this (and with this take your own ideas about what you want the character to do), you can give him/her the virtues he/she needs to have for the story and which is also ‘legal’ to the limits of the three subjects said above: race, gender and size.

How he creates sympathy

I think the greatest thing about the sympathy of those heroes is that they have no great flaws. If they had flaws it was because of love for other things, i.e.: Boromir wanted the Ring, which was his flaw, but he wanted it because he thought he could save Gondor with it. There are also heroes in M-e for which there’s no sympathy, anyway not from me, and one of them is Feänor. I think the greatest reason for this is that he had a flaw: pride. So, in my eyes, he gave his heroes no great flaws, so that the chance was smaller that they would do great mischief.
Tolkien was able to create sympathy for his villains, remember old Lotho Sackville-Baggins. In the beginning of the time that Saruman marred the Shire, Lotho thought it quite good that he came. That Saruman wanted to go that far as said in the LotR, was not his intention. But it was too late for he had nothing to say anymore in the matter. Gollum is another class villain and earns sympathy in other ways, especially while helping Frodo into Mordor.

Event-driven or character-driven?

I think that it’s a combination of these two, and with it the magnificent description of the places that they go to and the items that are carried, even the places and items of less importance. Greatest of all these things, I guess, is the excellent description of the characters and the places and the items.


That's it!...
greetings,
lathspell