Sauron's lack of Death...

[Eldy]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

this probably has a lot to do with the fact that Sauron probably can't 'die', being a Miar.

I agree that it has a lot to do with Sauron's nature as a Maia. However, while he does not die in the normal sense, he is permanently disembodied, which is much like what happens to Elves and Men when they die. In a way, becoming an impotent spirit in the wilderness seems a fate worse than death to me.

This is another way in which The Lord of the Rings differs itself from many others.
I can't help referencing The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe wherein the White Witch is ultimately killed by Aslan. Or His Dark Materials where god is killed or Harry Potter where Voldemort meets that same fate.

I've never read His Dark Materials, but in the other cases, the antagonist is not killed by the hero, per se. Certainly he dies, but it is somewhat indirect. In TLtWatW, it was as you point out Aslan, not one of Pevensies, who killed the White Witch. In Harry Potter, Harry's innocence was preserved since he cast only a defensive spell and then other forces kicked in. It's not the same as TLotR, but the hero still doesn't actually kill the villain.

Whenever there is death in the story, they at least see the victim, it seems.

No one sees Sauron.

That is a very good point, and not one that I had thought of before. We certainly see the deaths of other villains, notably Saruman and Wormtongue, directly.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

There's also the problem of what to do with Sauron if, by a remote chance, he was defeated. Keeping him as a POW would be too risky, considering what he did in Númenor in the Second Age. All he needs to do is to wait a couple of generations for those who knew him as an enemy to die off, and let people grow up who might feel sorry for him. We can also look back and see the havoc his former master, Morgoth, wreaked in Valinor after he was released. The only way to keep him harmless when he was overcome again at the end of the First Age was to imprison him outside of Arda, casting him out beyond the Walls of Night.

An excellent point. Sauron's track record is somewhat against him. It does make me curious about Tolkien's views on the nature of evil, for it seems to be a thing that pollutes and cannot be cured completely, especially in the cases of magical beings. The more power one has, the deeper an evil seed will grow.
Another point on this could be seen in how Bilbo reacts to the Ring. It had a hold over him that lasted the rest of his life (as far as we know) and even at Rivendell, after the thing had been destroyed, he was still obsessed with it. The poison of evil contaminates even the best of Hobbits.
Sam is an interesting departure from this rule, however. He is tempted by the Ring, but ultimately refuses. Indeed, that he does not perceive himself to be in any position of authority may be something here. He rejects the power offered by Sauron and plods along.
A case of power corrupts, perhaps? We see most characters who occupy powerful positions or abilities to be more susceptible to more permanent damage from evil. Gandalf seems to have this fear at the forefront when Frodo offers him the Ring.

Originally Posted by shadowfax

In the absence of Melkor, Sauron was in a way Satan incarnate. You cannot utterly destroy evil in this world, you can defeat it for a while but it will come back and hence every generation must be on its guard. There is thus no "war to end all war". I therefore believe that Tolkien intentionally left open a possibility by which Sauron could survive and one day return.

Which is why The New Shadow always interested me.
The Elves were always fighting 'The Long Defeat'.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

I have the impression Tolkien held that for killing to be at all ethically justifiable, you had (among other things) to face the reality of the act. When you read his WWII letters to Christopher (who was serving in the RAF at the time), you gather that he considered anonymous killing by dropping a bomb from a plane on people you don't really see assignable to Mordor (which got its own Special Flying Corps in the book) and was deeply concerned about the possibility of his son being spiritually harmed by taking part in this kind of warfare, even though he was realist enough to see that it was necessary under the given conditions.

That's exactly what I was getting at! .
One criticism that I've heard most from people who have only watched the films is that it's all 'men with swords killing one another'. This, I don't need to tell you, is not really the case. The battles don't tend to get as much attention as the ramifications. Battles make for entertaining cinema, perhaps, but more emphasis is put on the characters in the prose. The way Aragorn and Eomer interact in Helms Deep, for example is an interesting one.
Moreover, the fact that the Wild Men fight at Helms Deep adds and interesting dimension. These are not the horrible and disposable Orcs that come in their thousands, but men like the Rohirum. Also, think about the kinds of fears the Wild Men have of the Rohirum. That they will kill them and burn them and be merciless. So when they show mercy, it is surprising to them. Tolkien appears to prise mercy, even to enemies.
(Yeah, guess which part of The Lord of the Rings I'm in the middle of reading at the moment )

Originally Posted by Sarumian

This observation leads us to the exciting and complicated question of what is death in the Tolkien's universe. Not going into details we can state that death there means separation of a soul from a body; in case of Men it is irreversible, though Elves theoretically could return to their bodily shape. Anyway even for Men death never meant elimination of spirit, but rather the departure from Arda and return to Eru (the Creator). Moreover, the separation can be either voluntary (elves) or compulsory (men).

Yes, when death isn't really death, it gets confusing, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Here is the crux of the problem: Iluvatar seems to be less and less involved in the plight of Arda as Tolkien's history goes on.

Unlike El / YHVH, Eru / Illuvatar is not so involved in the creation of the world. He is indirectly responsible, perhaps. But ultimately, it is the Valar who are the creators, for it is their music (though a convincing argument that it all came from Eru anyway could be made). The point is, Eru seems to have handed most of the responsibility over to the slightly inept and bumbling Valar. Once again, this probably has a lot to do with Tolkien's love of Pantheons.

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

And this is where I believe Tolkien, either by misunderstanding Biblical narrative, or by not realizing it, departs from similarity.

For every 'correct' interpretation of the Bible, there are a thousand men telling you it is incorrect.
Moreover, I never saw Gandalf, or any figure in the mythology, as a parallel of Christ, or, at least, never a complete one. Indeed, I doubt there are any complete parallels, but many characters displaying elements.

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

I would see Gandalf as more of a parallel to Moses than anyone

In some ways, yes, in others, no. Again, you have to remember that the Bible isn't the only mythology Tolkien drew from.

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Tolkien obviously derives his Ainulindalë from the Council of El in the Bible.

That's not entirely accurate. But Formy has given pretty much the response I would have. *high fives Formy*

Originally Posted by Eldorion

I've never read His Dark Materials, but in the other cases, the antagonist is not killed by the hero, per se. Certainly he dies, but it is somewhat indirect. In TLtWatW, it was as you point out Aslan, not one of Pevensies, who killed the White Witch. In Harry Potter, Harry's innocence was preserved since he cast only a defensive spell and then other forces kicked in. It's not the same as TLotR, but the hero still doesn't actually kill the villain.

Well, I read HDM a while back and it's fuzzy in my mind, so, apologies there.
Aslan is a hero, though. Not a protagonist, I'll grant you. I'm interested in the nature of how fantasies deal with their villains, which is why I brought it up. Where the usual instinct is to repay evil with evil, in Tolkien's case it is to stop Sauron and Melkor from doing further damage (mainly because they cannot be made to stop existing). In Harry Potter, it is still death, that stops Voldemort.

[Eldy]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

Aslan is a hero, though. Not a protagonist, I'll grant you. I'm interested in the nature of how fantasies deal with their villains, which is why I brought it up. Where the usual instinct is to repay evil with evil, in Tolkien's case it is to stop Sauron and Melkor from doing further damage (mainly because they cannot be made to stop existing). In Harry Potter, it is still death, that stops Voldemort.

Fair enough; perhaps I was drawing too fine of a distinction there. I'd point out though that in the case of Melkor (at least, as it is told in Myths Transformed, though the canon status of those texts are questionable), he was physically executed, and his spirit then banished into the Void. I think bodily death is close enough for an indestructible spirit.

Thinking about it though, bodily death is all that occurs for many. Elves and Men both have souls that continue to 'live' after their bodies die. It's not clear what happens to the Istari, but Saruman's spirit seemed to endure for at least a minute or so, and given that he was a Maia I would expect it did for longer. I think anything with a soul or spirit can endure bodily death. Sauron stands out in that his spirit remains in mortal lands, though.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Eldorion

Thinking about it though, bodily death is all that occurs for many. Elves and Men both have souls that continue to 'live' after their bodies die. It's not clear what happens to the Istari, but Saruman's spirit seemed to endure for at least a minute or so, and given that he was a Maia I would expect it did for longer. I think anything with a soul or spirit can endure bodily death. Sauron stands out in that his spirit remains in mortal lands, though.

Assuming Christianity (of which Tolkien was a believer), does anyone ever die? Surely there was a time before we existed (outside the knowledge of God), but after our souls are 'born,' we are then eternal. Our bodies may go to the ground, but our souls live on, either in eternal bliss or that other place from which all spambots come.

Isn't Sauron then just like that?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by alatar

Assuming Christianity (of which Tolkien was a believer), does anyone ever die? Surely there was a time before we existed (outside the knowledge of God), but after our souls are 'born,' we are then eternal. Our bodies may go to the ground, but our souls live on, either in eternal bliss or that other place from which all spambots come.

Isn't Sauron then just like that?

Perhaps the distinction comes in that death in the Christian myth still requires to transfer of the 'soul' to some other realm (heaven). In Middle Earth there is a sense of this to some degree - eleves to the halls of Mandos, Melkor to the void. Sauron still roams Arda, as a disembodied spirit, unable to do anything or influence anyone. A kind of living death more so than the Nazgul.
It's difficult to make the distinction when there is some idea of an after life.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

Sauron still roams Arda, as a disembodied spirit, unable to do anything or influence anyone. A kind of living death more so than the Nazgul.
It's difficult to make the distinction when there is some idea of an after life.

So *that's* where ghosts come from...

[Blind Guardian]

Hi, Sort of new here,


I was reading this and wondered, in The Silmarillion (of which I did not read all) it described that the Ilúvatar (right?) created a sun and a moon. Later it stated that Morgoth wanted to destroy both. Wouldn't there at least be some common sense in it? Like we can't destroy our sun, he should not be able to destroy theirs, right?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

I have the impression Tolkien held that for killing to be at all ethically justifiable, you had (among other things) to face the reality of the act. When you read his WWII letters to Christopher (who was serving in the RAF at the time), you gather that he considered anonymous killing by dropping a bomb from a plane on people you don't really see assignable to Mordor (which got its own Special Flying Corps in the book) and was deeply concerned about the possibility of his son being spiritually harmed by taking part in this kind of warfare, even though he was realist enough to see that it was necessary under the given conditions.

Tolkien indeed apparently deplored the fact that such warfare had become necessary, but he understood that was what the situation required. So did Gandalf, who to me seems to embody the voice of the author more clearly than any other.
Destroying Sauron by proxy was the only thing the West could do, the only chance they had. If Tolkien himself thought the manner of Sauron's death 'unsporting' or dishonourable, there would be some reflection of that in the books. But there isn't. After Sauron's death there is only rejoicing by the West, and no lamentation of the evil that was gone. Aragorn doesn't say 'I wish I could have faced him in person, matching my sword with his'. In fact, if a one-on-one showdown was the 'right' thing to do, why couldn't Aragorn have taken a page from Fingolfin's book, and told the Mouth 'I want to face your master in single combat. The outcome will decide this war'?

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Anybody want to guess what he would have thought of nuclear weapons, which make it possible for a politician to unleash outright genocide by simply pushing a button? (Can't remember if there's anything about that in the Letters - if someone has them at hand and can post a quote, I'd be grateful.)

Here you are:

The news today about 'Atomic bombs' is so horrifying one is stunned. The utter folly of those lunatic physicists to consent to do such work for war-purposes: calmly plotting the destruction of the world! Such explosives in men's hands, while their moral and intellectual status is declining, is about as useful as giving out firearms to all inmates of a gaol and then saying that you hope 'this will ensure peace'. But one good thing may arise out of it, I suppose, if the write-ups are not overheated: Japan ought to cave in. We are in God's hands, but He does not look kindly on Babel-builders.

Letter #102

In another he says that with the atomic bomb the West had decided to use the Ring for 'most excellent' purposes'.

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

One criticism that I've heard most from people who have only watched the films is that it's all 'men with swords killing one another'. This, I don't need to tell you, is not really the case. The battles don't tend to get as much attention as the ramifications. Battles make for entertaining cinema, perhaps, but more emphasis is put on the characters in the prose. The way Aragorn and Eomer interact in Helms Deep, for example is an interesting one.
Moreover, the fact that the Wild Men fight at Helms Deep adds and interesting dimension. These are not the horrible and disposable Orcs that come in their thousands, but men like the Rohirum. Also, think about the kinds of fears the Wild Men have of the Rohirum. That they will kill them and burn them and be merciless. So when they show mercy, it is surprising to them. Tolkien appears to prise mercy, even to enemies.

Certainly mercy was a virtue to Tolkien. The most obvious examples are with Gollum, who is spared by three different Hobbits at various times. Gandalf explained it to Frodo as 'Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need'. The 'without need' is the important bit. One is not obligated to avoid killing at all costs; to refuse to pick up the sword when enemies raise theirs against you. But when mercy is an option, it is for the wise and moral to seize the opportunity to show it.

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

Unlike El / YHVH, Eru / Illuvatar is not so involved in the creation of the world. He is indirectly responsible, perhaps. But ultimately, it is the Valar who are the creators, for it is their music (though a convincing argument that it all came from Eru anyway could be made). The point is, Eru seems to have handed most of the responsibility over to the slightly inept and bumbling Valar. Once again, this probably has a lot to do with Tolkien's love of Pantheons.

Ilúvatar was the Prime Creator, of course; the holder of the Flame Imperishable. Eä was his direct creation. If he is the company CEO, the Valar are 'department heads', charged with running the 'company' in line with his directives. As created beings themselves, the Valar are certainly not infallible, sometimes necessitating some direct action from the Top.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

Unlike El / YHVH, Eru / Illuvatar is not so involved in the creation of the world. He is indirectly responsible, perhaps. But ultimately, it is the Valar who are the creators, for it is their music (though a convincing argument that it all came from Eru anyway could be made). The point is, Eru seems to have handed most of the responsibility over to the slightly inept and bumbling Valar. Once again, this probably has a lot to do with Tolkien's love of Pantheons.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Ilúvatar was the Prime Creator, of course; the holder of the Flame Imperishable. Eä was his direct creation. If he is the company CEO, the Valar are 'department heads', charged with running the 'company' in line with his directives. As created beings themselves, the Valar are certainly not infallible, sometimes necessitating some direct action from the Top.

Hookbill's point about Tolkien's love of pantheons seems spot-on to me, in terms of Tolkien's motivations vis-a-vis the Valar, but I am going to have to voice a bit of disagreement regarding the Valar being, "ultimately... the creators" and Eru the indirect creator. Quite possibly, we're actually saying the same thing, in terms of intention, but I am a pedant and must persist.

The Music of the Valar, though it provided the template for Arda did not create Arda. Certainly, in the Music, Eru was only an indirect Creator--though I would argue that the the composer and conductor of a piece of music is more than an indirect participator, but rather a major player--albeit, since this is a work involving great amounts of improvisation, by no means the only player. All the same, I would emphasise that Arda was not created by the Music--it was created when Eru said "Eä: Let these things be!"

Obviously, the Valar then have a great role in shaping Arda, just as they had an influential role in the Music, but they are not the actual creators. Eru creates very much ex nihilo, and this is one of the major differences between him and the Valar: the Valar can only work with what they are given, whereas Eru can cause things to be that we not.

To my mind, this makes Eru the direct creator, and the Valar but sub-creators (and indirect creators insofar as they shaped the Music which Eru called into being).

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Destroying Sauron by proxy was the only thing the West could do, the only chance they had. If Tolkien himself thought the manner of Sauron's death 'unsporting' or dishonourable, there would be some reflection of that in the books. But there isn't. After Sauron's death there is only rejoicing by the West, and no lamentation of the evil that was gone. Aragorn doesn't say 'I wish I could have faced him in person, matching my sword with his'. In fact, if a one-on-one showdown was the 'right' thing to do, why couldn't Aragorn have taken a page from Fingolfin's book, and told the Mouth 'I want to face your master in single combat. The outcome will decide this war'?

I didn't mean to suggest that the unethicality of killing an unseen foe applied in Sauron's case. When you're up against a demon tyrant who throws his armies in myriads against you, commanded by undead wraiths, while hiding in an impregnable fortress, and all he lacks to overpower you completely is this little piece of jewellery which by sheer luck has come into your hands, some exception to the usual rules for treatment of enemy combatants is OK, I think.
As for Aragorn challenging Sauron to a personal duel, Gil-galad and Elendil tried that approach the last time around, and all it accomplished was to postpone the threat for a few millennia. As long as the Ring remained undestroyed, killing Sauron bodily wouldn't solve the problem.
To get back to the question of ethics: there are, of course, situations where it's justifiable and indeed necessary to ignore sporting fairness, honour and even the rules of normal ethic behaviour in order to protect innocent lives - where the only responsible thing is to get your hands dirty and take a minor guilt upon you, because by avoiding it you would incur an even greater guilt. (As Donaldson's Thomas Covenant would put it: innocence is wonderful, but it's powerless; power leads to guilt, and only those willing to accept guilt can achieve something good.)

But from another angle: considering that the part of Sauron he put into the ring is as much of him as we ever get to see directly, I think it's important that Frodo took it all the way to Mount Doom himself and had to resist its influence at such a terrible cost to himself. This, if you like, is LotR's version of the hero confronting the chief villain, and it's another reason why simply eagle-dropping the Ring into the fire wouldn't have worked. For the victory over evil to have weight and meaning, somebody has to struggle and come to terms with evil personally. (This isn't about ethics anymore, and I don't have a good name for what it is about; 'spiritual believability' comes closest.)

Thanks for the Atomic bomb quote! That's about what I'd have expected from him.

Originally Posted by Inzil

In another he says that with the atomic bomb the West had decided to use the Ring for 'most excellent' purposes'.

Yeah, well. 'All shall love us and despair.' (But I'll be a good boy and not head off on a political tangent there...)