LotR Sauron vs. Silm Sauron?

[skip spence]

Inziladun makes a good point in that LotR is from a Hobbit perspective. As far as we know, Sauron might still be a great character in Frodo's time, a charismatic conversationalist with an array of daring and diabolical tricks in the bag, but how can Frodo (the alleged author) know anything about that? That said, I think Sauron well could've made an appearance or two. I would've like to see that. There is after all one character in the book who had met Sauron in person. "He has only four [fingers] on the Black Hand, but they are enough" Gollum says of him.

Before the fall of Numenor Sauron had all his Maiar-traits intact and could still appear as a fair and wise figure. Late in the third age he had long lost this ability for shape-shifting and was no longer able to infiltrate a society to deceive them in person. His physical incarnation was now a tall and terrible Dark Lord with fear and power as his weapons of choice.

[Alfirin]

There are touches of the old "tempter" sauron even in the LOTR. Consider his reported action with Gloin mentioned by Gimli in the ring council. Rather than simply attempting to go in an conquer the Dwarves by force, he send a messanger with an offer of peace, friendship, and a reward (new dwarven rings) in exchange for the Dwarves alliance and thier help in locating the one ring. True, the offer is utimately not accepted, and Sauron may not yet be in a position to lauch a full scale attack on anyone, dwarf or otherwise at the time the offer is made, but it is still an offer, and offers like that are the mark of one who still understands the concept of guile.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by skip spence

That said, I think Sauron well could've made an appearance or two. I would've like to see that.

Me too. But I don't know if it had ruined the effect, the air of evil about him. In my opinion, Tolkien handled portraying Melkor quite well, but it's possible it wouldn't have suited Sauron of Lotr that nicely.

I agree Inziladun's point about Lotr being narrated by hobbits was good. In spite of all the hobbits' good traits, they are rather simple characters, easily led by the wise. I find it extremely hard to believe they would have spent a moment thinking what Sauron's motives for wanting to conquer Middle-earth might have been, and therefore Sauron is pictured as the extreme evil. If you are convinced to think a certain way by someone you respect, it's not easy to start thinking from the opponent's point of view (and this is why I like Frodo; I think he learnt it in the end). Who knows - maybe Sauron in truth believed what he was doing was right and for the good of everyone. See - if we think about the real world, we can find people who honestly think their aim is good even though the rest of the world finds them nothing but evil.

Tolkien started working on the Silmarillion long before Lotr, but I don't remember when Sauron first stepped into the picture. He is a fascinating, interesting character in the Sil, though, and he and Finrod's singing contest is pure gold.

However, I have always wondered what was the relationship between Melkor and Sauron. When Sauron came to Númenor and preached about Melkor as a saviour, did he believe it himself? Had Melkor had such a power on him; how much work had he had to do to lure Sauron and other ainur to his side? Did he really view Melkor as the true god, or was it just his means to subject the Númenoreans? Sauron himself was clearly a god-like character to some peoples.
Or did Sauron see serving Melkor just as an opportunity to get power? Or did he really believe in Melkor's cause and wanted to help him however he could?

[skip spence]

Well, one thing about LotR and TH is that we never get to see the bad guys succeed with anything. This isn't the case in CoH or the Silm, where it's the baddies that stand strong and united while the good guys quibble and fight amongst themselves and ultimately fail. I suppose it has something to do with the format of storytelling, the first two being fairy-tales, the latter epics. Perhaps Davem can tell us more?

In any case, I think the bad guys in LotR are really suffering (in a literary sense) because of this reluctance to show them succeed. The Nazgul are said to be Sauron's deadliest and most fearsome servants yet seem unable to do much good (and by good I mean bad) for their master. We never read about them actually slaying a single person in the whole trilogy which to me gives them a rather impotent impression. The Orcs are also portrayed as pretty useless fighters and even the diminutive Sam, who's never handled a sword, can take out a few. The only instance when they manage to make a kill in the books is when Boromir is caught alone with Merry and Pippin, and even then they struggle to overcome him despite being hundreds against one, and armed with projectile weapons. Saruman is also said to be a mighty wizard, but unlike Gandalf who can do amazing things, he seems unable to even make a matchbox disappear.

So perhaps it is a good thing Sauron doesn't make an appearance and that none of our heroes ever comes to Barad Dur. We don't have to see him fail. His absence is symbolic too of course. In Tolkien's world good commanders lead their army from the front line. Sauron is a coward and stays behind, sending others to do his dirty work.

[Lalwendë]

Nogrod I'm with you on this one! I have problems with Sauron in LotR too. I suppose I'm used to meatier bad guys and here we have almost a metaphorical evil.

But then how Sauron works as an enemy I think is by the things which he does and causes. We see Orcs, Balrogs, Fell Beasts, Ringwraiths, Trolls, and of course, the effects of those Rings. Sauron in that respect does not need a 'face'. Like many other evils that have ridden the psyches of this world (fears of reds under the bed, terrorists, bogeymen in the wardrobe, global warming etc) we don't always need a face, it's enough to be scared witless by possibility and our own fears eating us up.

In LotR, he's almost become so evil that he doesn't even need to be seen any more. Now that's real evil power!

As a character though, Sauron is much, much more interesting elsewhere. Oh I'd love to see him dancing in the lightning on Numenor - what an image!

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Skip

Well, one thing about LotR and TH is that we never get to see the bad guys succeed with anything. This isn't the case in CoH or the Silm, where it's the baddies that stand strong and united while the good guys quibble and fight amongst themselves and ultimately fail. I suppose it has something to do with the format of storytelling, the first two being fairy-tales, the latter epics.

Originally Posted by Lal

But then how Sauron works as an enemy I think is by the things which he does and causes. We see Orcs, Balrogs, Fell Beasts, Ringwraiths, Trolls, and of course, the effects of those Rings. Sauron in that respect does not need a 'face'. Like many other evils that have ridden the psyches of this world (fears of reds under the bed, terrorists, bogeymen in the wardrobe, global warming etc) we don't always need a face, it's enough to be scared witless by possibility and our own fears eating us up.
In LotR, he's almost become so evil that he doesn't even need to be seen any more. Now that's real evil power!

I think you are hitting the nail right to the head here!

The evil principle introduced metaphorically under the name of Sauron couldn't be "meaty" or "juicy". It would have to be formless and behind the curtains so that we only meet his minions. And maybe the prof. was thinking like that when he wrote the LotR? It sounds plausible indeed - until someone with the "letters" comes forwards and proves me just downright wrong...

But when he was writing the Silm he realised that he could not keep up with that allegory of evil as such as there was Melkor and all that "actual history" there making Sauron more like a minion himself than the Real Thing. So he had to write Sauron as a personality that fitted the overall history and took his place there?

Or whatever the order of these writings are...

But what bugs me - and even if I didn't think of this explicitly yesterday when I opened this thread - it feels like Melkor in the Silm is much more flesh and blood even if he should be the embodiment of all evil if anyone is (or to be more exact: the abstraction, the concept of evil itself looked at from the point of view of the "fallen angel" legend). But Sauron as his minion feels like a great abstract principle more than flesh and blood in the LotR... and still fits his role as a "meaty character" in the Silm.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I think you are hitting the nail right to the head here!

The evil principle introduced metaphorically under the name of Sauron couldn't be "meaty" or "juicy". It would have to be formless and behind the curtains so that we only meet his minions. And maybe the prof. was thinking like that when he wrote the LotR? It sounds plausible indeed - until someone with the "letters" comes forwards and proves me just downright wrong...

That made me think...you've reminded me of the sketch Tolkien drew of his son Michael's nightmare which was of a sinister black arm and hand they called 'maddo' creeping down the curtains...I tried to find a pic of it online but couldn't, and in a way I'm glad because the drawing gives me the heebie-jeebies.

So Tolkien had a history in real life of giving names and identities to shapeless horrors....