The Unfair Fate of Saruman

[Nikkolas]

Fact: No one could willingly throw the One Ring in Mt. Doom.

it was sheer dumb lack/the Will of Eru/Plot Contrivance that allowed Frodo to complete his task.

Other than that, the armies of Sauron utterly eclipsed the remaining Men, Dwarves and Elves of Middle-earth. So the Istari's task, to "guide" the Free Peoples in opposing Sauron, was indeed hopeless because absolutely none of them could hope to prevail against him by force of arms.

So, destroying the Ring was logically impossible, challenging Sauron with armies was impossible....

If you are a general and it is your duty to defeat the enemy, do you put all your hope in chance? Would you trust or follow a guy who's strategy is "well, we can't really do anything but pray they succeed"?

I wouldn't and I don't think Saruman would either. He'd much rather put his hopes in something a bit more substantial.

[Alfirin]

You could also argue Gandalf himself "failed" at his task initially, since he died before the intended goal (eliminating Sauron) was achieved. I took direct divine intervention (sending him back) and some tweaking (sending him back far more powerful than he had been) to allow him to "finish the job".

And the situation for the people was even bleaker than you stated. It wasn't so much "Wait and pray they succeed" it was "Sacrifice yourselves and everyone else you care about in regular battles you have no hope of winning; and allow all you have to be destroyed in the vague one in a million chance that they succeed in a mission that logically they have no chance of." "Better to die free than live a slave" sounds nice on a banner, but in practical terms, it's a hard thing to convince anyone but an utter fanatic to practice (especially when "dying free" will most likely mean "dying in manners to agonizing to contemplate, or even being placed in a state where the enemy makes it so that you can't die and are tortured for eternity for their amusement.") Few will "Walk into Hell for a Heavenly Cause" if they know there is no chance of walking out again, or that their walking in will keep others they care about from being dragged in.) To most men, Gandalf would have seemed crazy, or as Denethor saw him, as big a threat as Sauron himself with regards to keeping themselves in one piece.

[Zigûr]

The whole point of the Wizards was to give counsel to the inhabitants of Middle-earth and guide them towards victory, not to lead them against Sauron. The Wizards were not "generals." Saruman tried to make himself one when he should have been turning his efforts towards aiding Men and Elves. Gandalf ended up having to do the duty of at least three Wizards on his own. Perhaps in different circumstances they might have managed a more organised defence against Sauron. Besides, when the Wizards were sent, Sauron's military strength was not nearly as great as it was at the end of the Third Age, insofar as he could be considered to have military strength at all rather than manipulating various factions on diverse campaigns. Similarly I don't think the impossibility of destroying the Ring was well-understood. Why would Gandalf have bothered with the attack on the Morannon otherwise? Hoping for a miracle, perhaps. That was the belief of which Saruman had become incapable. But as a rule I don't think that, prior to its identification, the Ring actually figured especially substantially in the policies of the Wise towards Sauron in any event. They believed, perhaps erroneously in the end, that some form of victory was possible. I would argue that if the essential role of the Ring had been understood earlier things would have been different. Elrond and Círdan might have been more insistent with Isildur, perhaps.

Saruman betrayed his mission and betrayed the Valar. He refused numerous offers of redemption. He was incapable of admitting that he was wrong and that his faithlessness was ultimately revealed to be unjustified. What place was there for him in the West after that? Would he have even wanted to return if permitted?

I would argue, perhaps, that Sauron played the Valar very well indeed over the course of the Second and Third Ages, forcing them into an apparent stalemate such that their efforts probably did seem hopeless. He had reckoned, however, without Eru.

[Morthoron]

*in a sudden moment of seriousness, the Dark Elf elucidates*

Saruman, like Sauron, was given a chance to repent, although in different ages and under different circumstances. That they eschewed the chance for penitence and judgment before their superiors marked them for oblivion; whereas, Boromir was absolved by asking forgiveness at his death (and thus the "fundamental Catholicity" of Tolkien).

This chance for forgiveness and redemption is a notable theme throughout Tolkien's work. Even Morgoth frittered away a chance at redemption earlier on.

[Ivriniel]

The Uruk Hai, a blended race, to mirror what Melkor did to the Elves (debate about Tolkien's refinement of this area aside later in his life). That's pretty perverse. On the verge of making new Rings. I.e. from hero Istari to replicator of the greatest of evils in Arda's history.

Those two deeds, imo, place Saruman as serioulsy at odds with the Valar, and in an irredemable place.

[Lotrelf]

Yes, Saruman had an unfair fate, so did Melkor, and Sauron as well. All evils have "unfair" fate. They deserve pity, not sympathy. Valar did not know the evil in Melkor's heart initially, but later he did suffer greatly (that I'm sure he did, and you cannot ignore that). Saruman was given various chances of redemption and repentance and he chose do more and evil. Once I'd read an article/ thread where a person had made list of 7 people who resisted the Ring-- and Saruman was no 7th position, I still struggle to see why he would at 7th position. (can someone clarify this? Why is was okay to put Saruman in the list of those who resisted the Ring?).

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

(can someone clarify this? Why is was okay to put Saruman in the list of those who resisted the Ring?).

Do you mean this article?
https://www.eviscerati.org/articles/...ng-Rather-Well
I can't "clarify" it because that would mean agreeing with what the author has said. His reasoning is based on false premises.

And since we know from some of the things Gandalf says that he was instrumental in the assault that drove Sauron/The Necromancer out of his fortress in Mirkwood, we can assume he was still working for the Good Guys at that point, and he had been studying the One Ring long before that.

Saruman delayed the Council from attacking Dol Guldur for a long time because he was hoping the Ring would reveal itself. When he finally relented it was because he was becoming concerned that Sauron would find the Ring before he did. He did not have positive motives for the attack, and had actually been making motions towards becoming a "Power" in Middle-earth for some time, albeit in secret.

He is lowest on the list because he never actually comes into contact with the ring and is corrupted by it anyway--and, also, he gets points deducted because he's really an incredible jerk--but he still gets a nod because as far as I can tell he was studying the ring and being seduced by it for an incredibly long time before he finally gave in.

I don't see how he even qualifies for inclusion, then. He can hardly be said to have "resisted" the One Ring just because he was aware that it existed and studied Ring-lore. Although I daresay they did not to the same extent, you might as well include Elrond or even Denethor on the list for almost the same reasons.
Saruman never came into the presence of the One Ring in his entire life. I think his inclusion here is just an effort on the part of the author of this article to be surprising, in addition to writing based on incomplete knowledge. He also writes

"Galadriel scores higher on the list than Gandalf because she is actually put in the position of being offered the ring directly, so she is tempted directly."

Wrong again. Frodo offered Gandalf the Ring as well:
"You are wise and powerful. Will you not take the Ring?"
I suppose it's just the author's opinion but Sam only bore the Ring for a day, more or less. Frodo carried it almost all the way to Mordor and didn't succumb until the very end. Also Boromir only "resists" the Ring after Frodo's put it on and run away. He still tried to take it, unlike Galadriel or Gandalf, who were mightier than him (albeit more wise, but I won't get back into that discussion again...) and arguably had greater need of it.

My point is, I think this article's argument that Saruman "resisted" the Ring is nonsensical. He never encountered it personally, and he fell anyway!

[Lotrelf]

Yes, that was the article I was talking about. I didn't say you have to agree with it, 'cause I didn't agree with that too, and most people wouldn't as well. I agree with EVERYTHING you have said. Saruman never encountered the Ring, that's why there's no logic of him being in the list at all. Whatever the excuses are given by the author do not justify his (Saruman's) evil deeds. And thus his "resistance" makes on sense to me.
Also, the list, to me, seems more about "who gave up the Ring willingly" than "who resisted it."
On a side note, didn't Galadriel let herself be tempted unlike Gandalf? She let herself be tempted and resisted, something that Gandalf didn't do (because he never needed it, and I think she needed to do so in order to be accepted in Valinor). Whatever the reason is, that does not make Gandalf inferior to Galadriel.