LotR Sauron vs. Silm Sauron?

[Nogrod]

Sauron is the evil principle in the LotR.

But as evil principles go, he's pretty tasteless and formless (). A bit dull one indeed. There's no personality, no great integral problems, traits or characteristics. Just the evil principle. Abstract and lacking of any believable or interesting persona or individual identity.

But in the Silmarillion he he comes more alive, more interesting and somewhat contradictory - which I always regard as a mark of a believable character.

One may call him the deceiver in the LotR, but he is a deceiver only in the Silm. In the LotR he's just the faceless bad while in the Silm he's a poet, a certain sweet-talker who needed to put everything at stake; a smith unparalleled, a subordinate gaining power living alongside his master all those millenia, one who needed to flee away only to take revenge for his cause...

Is it just that these are written afterwards and the Sauron of the LotR is just the immature and incomplete version of the Sauron to whom Tolkien finally had time to invest and think about later?

What say you?

[Gollum the Great]

Well, I wouldn't say that LOTR Sauron was personality-less. I see him more as an evil mastermind/lord/Satan bereaved of his superweapon to conquer the world in one swift blow. After failing to locate and reclaim his weapon he simply does the smart thing: maneuver what other forces he has into position so that no one else can rival him with his ring.
One might take Gandalf's argument and state that if he'd want to keep the ring from being destroyed he should have defended Mordor with all his armies and made sure no one could get in, but look at it from both Sauron's and the unbiased observer's eye: which was more likely, that the ring would be found by an easily corrupted person, or an unique person who could resist it? And had the ring not been found, there was no point in allowing the Free Peoples to prosper and grow.
All in all though, Gorthaur in the Silmarillion was a more interesting character. There he was not totally in charge of evil, but a servant, and a powerful one at that. I believe Tolkien did not fully think out the Sauron character in LOTR, but decided to give us some history of him and show some abilities and might of his in the Sil.

Good question, Nog.

[Inziladun]

Nogrod

Is it just that these are written afterwards and the Sauron of the LotR is just the immature and incomplete version of the Sauron to whom Tolkien finally had time to invest and think about later?

I think it important to keep in mind that the events in LOTR were ostensibly recorded by hobbit witnesses. When did they have an opportunity to observe Sauron in person, to get inside his mind, to explore his motivations? He spent the entire time in Mordor, and had no personal contact with any of the principal actors of the story. Who would have been in a position to report details of his personality?
During the First Age, Sauron, as the prime lieutenant of Morgoth, was obligated to personally oversee the accomplishment of many of his master's objectives. This would have brought him into more personal contact with his enemies, and thus into the written histories as something more than a far off, generic evil.
In the Second Age we see even more of him, again, because he is personally going about achieving his own ends, and not leaving all to subordinates.

Gollum the Great

Well, I wouldn't say that LOTR Sauron was personality-less. I see him more as an evil mastermind/lord/Satan bereaved of his superweapon to conquer the world in one swift blow. After failing to locate and reclaim his weapon he simply does the smart thing: maneuver what other forces he has into position so that no one else can rival him with his ring.

Sauron had, in effect, become like Morgoth: content to trust his servants and simply direct them to do his will. And really, what need was there for him to do otherwise?

[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....

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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

What is religion but giving names (LotR) and stories (Silm) for different forces & ideas; hopes & fears? Trying to reach the unreachable by uttering it?

[Aiwendil]

Interesting topic! Just to correct one point, though:

Originally Posted by Nogrod

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...

It was actually closer to the other way around. The cunning 'deceiver' Sauron of the Silmarillion is pretty well established in the pre-LotR writings. The first version of the 'Lay of Leithien', written between 1925 and 1931, is, I would say, the first place where Sauron as we know him in the Silmarillion is clearly portrayed.

So if anything, we have Tolkien moving from a vividly characterized villain to a faceless one, rather than the other way around. However, it's worth noting that in the post-LotR material, particularly the extensive revisions to the 'Lay of the Leithien', 'deceiver' Sauron is retained; in other words, post-LotR Sauron is more like pre-LotR Sauron than he is like LotR Sauron.

Given this, I think the differences between his portrayal in LotR and the Silmarillion have more to do with his roles in the respective works than with any re-thinking of the character by Tolkien.

[Morthoron]

Well, the faceless Sauron of LotR is purposeful by Tolkien, as the 'Great Eye' description and the 'Mouth of Sauron' are indicative of the facelessness and impersonalized abstraction of the Dark Lord. This is perhaps Tolkien's manner of showing the diminution of the heroes of LotR in comparison to Sauron himself.

The heroes directly involved in the conflict, such as Aragorn and Gandalf (and even more so the Hobbits), are no longer on par with Sauron, or at least the egoistic Dark Lord feels he no longer needs to meet his foes face-to-face; whereas, there was a danger imminent in previous encounters (with Gil-Galad and Elendil, Pharazon, Huan and Finrod, for instance), that either precluded intermediaries from involvement or required direct intervention on Sauron's part.

In his megalomania (for I believe Sauron had become megalomaniacal, as opposed to over-confident or conceited, as those persons with megalomania also worry, mistrust and suffer paranoia), Sauron would not deign to meet in combat these 3rd Age has-beens and never-wases; instead, he imbues the WitchKing and Nazgul with powers necessary to marshall his troops, and he trots out the Mouth of Sauron to treat with sarcasm and disrespect the little lords of Gondor and their toy army at the Morannon.

By the end of the 3rd Age, Sauron has become a living symbol of incarnate evil, godlike in power and unapproachable. A symbol, not a personification.

[Lalwendë]

Morthoron has given me a thought there with that good post. If you think about what Tolkien was trying to say about Totalitarianism with Lord of the Rings, then it makes sense that Sauron is 'faceless' as he is indeed a virtually symbolic evil figure.

If you contrast him with other megalomaniacs, both real and fictional, he stands up well against them, being the kind of leader who instead sends his henchmen out to be his 'public face' while he hides in Barad-Dur acting as master of puppets.

Like Big Brother in 1984 we don't need to 'meet' him as readers, we just need to know he is there watching the protagonists; and like Hitler he has no need to go onto the battlefield as he has his untermenschen to do that. Modern monsters do not show their faces, they just need to be an 'icon', that is more than enough to scare everyone into submission. Taking this argument to its extreme edge, you could say that Sauron is the best 'brand name' in Middle-earth; instead of golden arches he has a golden ring, and instead of a little tick, he has an 'eye'...

[radagastly]

Origianlly posted by Nogrod:

Is it just that these are written afterwards and the Sauron of the LotR is just the immature and incomplete version of the Sauron to whom Tolkien finally had time to invest and think about later?

Actually, the Sauron of "The Sil'" pre-dates the Sauron of "The Lord of the Rings." Tolkien began to write "The Simarillion" back in the twenties! I think that the answer, at least in this case, lies in the fact that Tolkien wanted to specifically obscure the evil force, in order to make it generic. Any personality he may have been tempted to add was deleted in early drafts to make Sauron deliberately a 'force' instead of a villain. If you give him a personality, he becomes a villain, rather than a force for evil. "The Lord of the Rings" was 'deliberately Catholic, in the revision.' As much as he claimed to hate allegory, he was creating a miracle play, a medieval allegory anyway. After all, he was a teacher. What better way to get faceless pupils (readers, out in the world) to actually think about his work, rather than just read it as a great adventure? Clearly, he had a greater purpose than just telling a wonderful story, or else his work would have been just as obscured by 'Harry Potter' as 'Harry Potter' has been recently obscured by the "Twilight" stories. We're all still here because Tolkien's story has more to offer than just a great adventure (not that it's not a great adventure! but it is so much more.)

I'll admit, I would like to see Sauron in person, resplendent with ego and dark doubt, but that would obscure his purpose. 'The Sil' (as published) was written over the couse of sixty-plus years. "The Lord of the Rings" was written specifically for publication, as a single story. It was not even meant as a trilogy. The publisher simply could not afford the amount of paper, after WWII, to print the whole thing at once. The trilogy divisions were artifically imposed by Tolkien out of practical necessity.

I think that Tolkien used the 'device' of the Hobbits' point-of-view to keep Sauron deliberately obscure in order to make him symbolic rather than specific. He clearly knew who Sauron was, after years of thinking and writing about Middle-Earth in terms of 'The Sil'. I feel he very specifically wanted to make the villains with personality just pawns in the greater scheme, like Saruman, or Ted Sandyman. 'Sauron' as a villain was just a symbol, not a character.

Besides, it's scarier when you never see the bad guy. Don't forget, you're two-thirds of the way through the movie 'Jaws" before you ever see the Shark! Even then, it's just glimpses until the climax! Now that's scary!

[Lalwendë]

Another thought....maybe Tolkien chose to make Sauron quite impersonal in Lord of the Rings in order to deliberately avoid readers making analogies with any particular one of the various 20th century dictators? He's more a symbol of totalitarianism than an allegory of any one dictator.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Another thought....maybe Tolkien chose to make Sauron quite impersonal in Lord of the Rings in order to deliberately avoid readers making analogies with any particular one of the various 20th century dictators? He's more a symbol of totalitarianism than an allegory of any one dictator.

A nice viewpoint indeed!

And one might only add to the 20th century dictators also the idea of the Evil itself which should not be personated or anthropomorphicized - like the principle of good (=God) shouldn't?