Snape and Saruman was JKR Preaching?

[Ceridwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 144456

Pippin:
> Interesting idea, comparing Saruman and Snape. 

Ceridwen:
I don't think it's possible to compare everything about Saruman and 
Snape.  I do see where their positions are about the same in the 
overall set-up of the stories.  Saruman and Snape are both 
the `middle evil' - with Gollum and Draco as the `least evil' and 
Sauron and LV as the `greatest evil'.  At least, according to the 
hero's perspective.  But within the seperate series of books, they 
have very different substories.

Saruman was the trusted mentor, the White Wizard.  He is Gandalf's 
superior, not his subordinate, as Snape is Dumbledore's subordinate.  
Saruman begins as someone to be trusted.  No one warns Gandalf about 
going to see Saruman.  No one questions why Gandalf trusts him.

So this way, I think, Snape and Saruman begin their respective series 
as direct opposites, even if they're holding the same position.  No 
one, not even students who are not a part of either VoldWar, like or 
trust Snape.  While, everyone seems to take Gandalf's assessment of 
Saruman at face value.

I do think they're occupying the same sort of place in their 
respective stories.  But the stories themselves are different.

Pippin:
> And then to discover that the hopes of the West were vested in a
> witless Halfling! Of course Saruman's previous dealings with
> Halflings like Frodo's dear cousin Lotho would not dispose him
> to think of Bagginses as potential heroes.

Ceridwen:
Yes, Saruman does hold the Hobbits in contempt.  And, Frodo Baggins?  
Not to mention his friends, Merry and, er, Pippin.  (Are we getting 
an insider's perspective? *g*)  Snape says he is contemptuous of 
Harry.  But I can't believe he could so thoroughly trick himself as 
to believe that.  It seems to me that Snape would think of Harry as 
miserable at Potions, and an insufferable brat.  But not that he was 
mediocre at best, not at all!  Harry isn't a new Dark Lord Rising, so 
maybe he's mediocre in comparison with that image.  But here, I think 
Snape was snowing the Black sisters.

Pippin:
> Frodo's early adventures such as getting lost in the Barrow downs,
> allowing the Ring to reveal itself in Bree and donning the Ring in 
the
> presence of the Nazgul on Weathertop, would not help. You could
> say that Frodo had fought his way out of some tight corners
> with the help of sheer luck and more talented friends, and you would
> be right.

Ceridwen:
Harry's made some mistakes, but he's younger than Frodo to begin 
with.  Even though Frodo has just reached his majority, that's *33 
years old* in the Shire.  Harry's shown competence when it mattered.  
He was able to fight off Voldemort in the graveyard, which sets him 
apart from Frodo and his misadventures right away.  Maybe the defeat 
of Quirrel!Mort was down to luck and his mother's protection, but 
slaying the basilisk and destroying the diary was pure Harry.  
Intuitive, sure.  But something more than luck.  Sirius turning out 
to be Good instead of a crazed killer frothing for Harry's neck was 
luck on Harry's part, with some of the dumb things he did, like going 
to the shack, or wandering around when he knew, or everybody told 
him, that a killer was stalking him.  Not smart, if it turned out to 
be true.

Harry was able enough with his wand to hold his own at the Ministry, 
even against what I recall to be greater odds.  Yes, he had his 
friends, but there were more than enough Death Eaters to go around.  
And yes, Dumbledore was the one who ultimately fought Voldemort.  
But, Harry acquitted himself very well.  So did the other DA 
members.  But Harry, IMO, was the best of them.

So, even parallels between Harry and Frodo don't match exactly.  Even 
the missions are different.  Frodo's is to get rid of a magically 
powerful ring.  This is a concrete object, and its destruction will 
lead directly to Sauron's fall.  Harry has no ring, he's winging it.  
His quest revolves around a nebulous thing called `love'.

Pippin:
> Might Saruman not think that Gandalf's plan was pure folly, and be
> tempted to draw on his resources of cunning and cruelty in order to
> show Gandalf that Frodo was an unworthy Hobbit, and Gandalf's
> confidence in him was misplaced?

Ceridwen:
I think Saruman gave Gandalf his real reason for joining with 
Sauron.  He saw no other outcome.  Especially with a Hobbit as the 
hopeful hero, once he finds that out.  And, his own greed, which was 
apparently unleashed by his own arrogance in thinking he could look 
into the Palantir (sp?) without harm, was another spur.

I don't see Snape doubting Dumbledore with the same contempt.  He may 
doubt, but since his position is subordinate to Dumbledore, I think 
he has more trust in DD's powers, wisdom and knowledge.  Where 
Saruman thinks of himself as above Gandalf, and as holding more 
power, wisdom and knowledge than his protege, as well as his actual 
position as the head of Gandalf's order.

In the early discussions about Snape after HBP, we all debated 
whether he was ESE! or ESG!  Which didn't make much sense.  DDM!, 
though, sounded right.  I do think Snape is totally against 
Voldemort.  But, I think he puts his trust in Dumbledore instead of 
in Harry or the Ministry or the Order.  If DDM! turns out to be 
right, then Snape can't see Dumbledore in the same way as Saruman 
sees Gandalf.  He may disagree, that's his right.  But I don't see 
him having that sneering sort of contempt toward Dumbledore at all.

Some other similarities that differ in the details:
1) Saruman tries to force Gandalf to go along with him.  He doesn't 
try to kill him.  He's aware of the danger in the mines, and he 
doesn't mind at all.  But Gandalf was done in by the creature of 
darkness and flame.  Dumbledore is dead, killed, apparently, by 
Snape.  While I do think there's something more to it, I'm only on my 
second reading of HBP.  Still, in the actual deeds as seen by the 
hero, Gandalf was killed fighting the Balrog.  Dumbledore was killed 
as he slumped, weakened on the tower, by one of his trusted 
associates.
2) We see Saruman's betrayal over and over, as he depletes the 
forests to forge his Uruk Hai army, and as Pippin and Merry discover 
the goods from the Shire.  We see Saruman communing with Sauron 
through the Palantir (sp?).  We see his changed personna, we never 
saw him as what he had been before, when he was elevated to the 
leadership of his Order.  Snape, on the other hand, is never shown 
with LV.  Not that I recall, anyway.  Maybe a scene like that would 
be too telling.  Or, maybe I'm discounting something we have seen in 
canon by thinking I read it in a fanfic.  We see Snape as someone 
Harry mistrusts from the beginning when he thought it was Snape who 
made his scar hurt.  We have half-heard conversations which turn out 
to be much different than we thought.  We have outright acts of 
rescue, possible acts of rescue, and a somewhat sympathetic backstory 
for Snape.
3)  We are privy to Gandalf's thoughts and actions independent of 
Frodo's.  So far, we haven't seen Dumbledore on his own without 
seeing his actions through Harry's viewpoint, as in the Penseive 
scenes.  We are almost completely limited to Harry's observations, 
with the exceptions of three chapters I can think of.  This is where 
the story moves from a heroic epic to a mystery, IMO, since we don't 
have much more than the hero does to go on.  That's a very big 
difference in how we view, as readers, LOTR and HP.
4)  Frodo comes off, to me, as a tool, a vehicle for the ring's last 
journey, as much as he comes off a hero.  His heroism is in his inner 
strength and his determination to get the job done.  That's the 
reason he was chosen to be the Ring Bearer.  He was unaffected by the 
ring's seduction.  Harry, however, is more of an active hero.  He 
fights back.  He shows an ability and a determination to learn spells 
he might need to defeat LV.  I'm thinking specifically about his DA 
club right now.  He didn't originate it, but he led it, he taught it, 
and he improved himself.  Frodo just went on his journey and came 
back too damaged to survive in Middle Earth any more.
5)  Sauron has powers that Frodo doesn't have.  And, Frodo has no 
chance of ever gaining these powers.  Harry is more evenly matched 
with LV.  Harry has the ability to perform magic, the same as LV.  
The only differences are that Harry's younger and has less training 
than LV, and one or the other would naturally be more innately 
powerful.  In the same way as someone else will run faster than me, 
but read slower.  The basics are the same.

So, while I do see similarities in the stories, I can also see that 
there are differences.

I'm sure there's more.  But this is four pages long already!  My 
apologies to anyone who's made it this far, as well as my thanks.  I 
had to get that off my chest.

Ceridwen.