Sauron's loyalty after the First Age

[Eäralda Halatiriva]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Well if we can't take Professor Tolkien's word for it I don't know what we can do. While he didn't believe in absolute evil, he thought that Sauron was about as close as you could get

what makes you assume that this Legendarium is a closed, rather than an open code? that it can be translated only in terms of Monotheistic tradition, even if said subcreation clearly reflects in very many ways the unconscious ontology of Tolkien?

for the audience - what is this process and conversation saying to you?

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Eäralda Halatiriva

what makes you assume that this Legendarium is a closed, rather than an open code?

I suppose because Professor Tolkien termed it a "sub-creation" and he was the "sub-creator". As such while there are numerous undisclosed elements upon which we can only speculate, there are certain aspects made explicit in notes, letters and such about things which, were they referent to parts of the primary world we would consider subjective but which the "sub-creator" can describe objectively in regards to his "sub-creation". That's at least how I look at it. I know some people hold that only what we read in The Lord of the Rings can be taken at face value (and that not even The Hobbit and certainly not The Silmarillion, let alone other material, can be read as a completely accurate portrayal of the Professor's vision) but I find that to be a limiting notion. As far as I'm concerned if Professor Tolkien wrote it and it's not later contradicted anywhere by something he wrote then within the "sub-creation" of Middle-earth it's objectively true - unless he himself left it open for speculation, of course!

[Eäralda Halatiriva]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I suppose because Professor Tolkien termed it a "sub-creation" and he was the "sub-creator". As such while there are numerous undisclosed elements upon which we can only speculate, there are certain aspects made explicit in notes, letters and such about things which, were they referent to parts of the primary world we would consider subjective but which the "sub-creator" can describe objectively in regards to his "sub-creation". That's at least how I look at it. I know some people hold that only what we read in The Lord of the Rings can be taken at face value (and that not even The Hobbit and certainly not The Silmarillion, let alone other material, can be read as a completely accurate portrayal of the Professor's vision) but I find that to be a limiting notion. As far as I'm concerned if Professor Tolkien wrote it and it's not later contradicted anywhere by something he wrote then within the "sub-creation" of Middle-earth it's objectively true - unless he himself left it open for speculation, of course!

and your speculative suppositions are, well, truthful

but i suppose this is like saying that all Signs can have only one meaning, now isn't it? but i will opine that, all Signs, all codes are infinitely fertile, and fecund, yes? inter-subjectively, naturally.

since when was creativity a one-way street? what would Belegûr have to say on that?

[Mumriken]

1. Sauron promoted Morgoth as a god because he still admired his superiority.
2. Sauron exploited the memory of Morgoth just to make himself powerful; it was pure manipulation and nothing more.
In the end there's some room for both points of view, although personally I find the second one more supportable and consistent with other examples from the texts. I guess the difference here is that I'm relying mostly on scrutiny of Professor Tolkien's writing rather than a broader view of the human condition (in so far as it applies to a non-human fictional character).

Why choose Morgoth and not anyone else to put forth as a false god for people to worship? Not only that but his actions all speaks for loyalty towards morgoth. However I do think with the ages passing some of the loyalty was forgotten, he became more consumed by his own being so to speak.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Mumriken

However I do think with the ages passing some of the loyalty was forgotten, he became more consumed by his own being so to speak.

This thought struck me as well. It doesn't seem unreasonable to view it as a gradual process: Sauron the loyal lieutenant in the First Age, then in the Second Age despite lacking a master he's still very influenced by Morgoth; he's not yet completely dominated by his own pride. Then by the Third, having expended so much of his own potency on himself and his policies, he's much more self-absorbed - the point at which:

his ‘plans’, the idea coming from his own isolated mind, became the sole object of his will, and an end, the End, in itself ~Morgoth's Ring

Everything decayed "in the wearing of the swift years of Middle-earth" - even the villains.

[Mumriken]

Seems like we have come to an agreement then. Peace

[Sarumian]

An interesting thread. Let me add my 2 cents.

If we compare loyalty to gravity, would a moon remain loyal to a planet if the planet has gone? Probably, the moon would still carry many traces of it's former master's influence and would even consist of the same combination of substances, but it is no more a satellite. It is no more kept in and directed by it's former master's gravity. Then everything depend on what exactly you mean by 'loyalty'.

May I also rise the question if Stalin was loyal to Lenin? After Lenin's death Stalin ran an official quasi-cult of Lenin with a pyramid, containing Lenin's mummified body in the middle of Moscow. Stalin always presented himself as a defender of Lenin's ideas and attitudes against various opportunists (such as Trotsky). However, Stalin followed Lenin's ideas in his own interpretation, quite opportunistic sometimes. Moreover, Lenin died, loosing his battle against his "dedicated disciple".

On May 25, 1922, Lenin suffered a stroke while recovering from surgery to remove a bullet lodged in his neck since a failed assassination attempt in August 1918. Severely debilitated, he went into semi-retirement and moved to his dacha in Gorki. Stalin visited him often, acting as his intermediary with the outside world.[2] During this time, the two quarrelled over economic policy and how to consolidate the Soviet republics. One day, Stalin verbally swore at Lenin's wife for breaching Politburo orders by helping Lenin communicate with Trotsky and others about politics;[2] this greatly offended Lenin. As their relationship deteriorated, Lenin dictated increasingly disparaging notes on Stalin in what would become his testament. He criticised Stalin's rude manners, excessive power, ambition and politics, and suggested that Stalin should be removed from the position of General Secretary. One of Lenin's secretaries showed Stalin the notes, whose contents shocked him.[2] Before Stalin could mend any bridges, Lenin suffered a heart attack on March 10, 1923 which left him completely incapacitated.

Rise of Joseph Stalin in Wikipedia, providing the generally accepted interpretation of the affairs.

Did Stalin respect Lenin as a politician? Yes. Did he serve Lenin's cause with dedication? Yes. Did he usually support Lenin in his disagreements with other Party members? Yes. Did he keep Lenin's reputation extremely high after Lenin's death? Yes.

Did Stalin undisputedly implement suggestions of handicapped Lenin in the last months of his life? No. Can we think he really wanted Lenin to recover? No. Did he have most of Lenin's associates eliminated in "purges"? Yes. Did he revised Lenin-Trotsky cause of world-wide Communist revolution, working out a "Leninist" Socialism-in-one-country theory of his own? Yes.

So was Stalin loyal to Lenin? It, again, depends on what do you mean by loyalty.

Was Sauron loyal to Morgoth after the 1st Age? I think, Sauron was loyal to himself. He was loyal to his own essence shaped under Morgoth's patronage, but no more personally to Morgoth.