Sympathy for the Devil?

[Mithadan]

One of the tragic themes of LoTR is the grief of the Ringbearers. A person's inability to possess or loss of the Ring is a supreme torment. The mere glimpse of the bauble leads Smeagol to murder his best friend in order to possess it. Bilbo, after carrying it for only a matter of hours, has it slip off his finger in front of a cadre of Orcs and his first instinct is neither to flee nor defend himself, but rather to search his pockets for the missing Ring. Gollum traverses the length and breadth of Middle Earth pursuing Bilbo and his lost Precious. Bilbo accuses Gandalf of trying to steal it after his Birthday Party. Gandalf fears to handle it. Galadriel lusts after it. Saruman is corrupted by his desire for it. It drives Boromir to near insanity. Gollum starves himself to near death first guiding Frodo and then chasing him through Mordor. Frodo, despite knowing that it is utterly evil and after a year's travel and efforts focused upon destroying it, cannot do so. Even after it is destroyed it torments him. The Ring becomes the focus and compulsion of all who have possessed it and deeply affects even those who merely know of it.

The Ring was found by Deagol in T.A. 2463 and was destroyed in 3019, 556 years later. Over this span of time the Ring, or the inability to posess the Ring, worked tremendous grief upon many people. Examining the discussions of Gollum and Frodo in LoTR, it appears the loss of the Ring is an almost physical torment; an aching loss incapable of being assuaged. We feel sorrow for Frodo and even learn to have sympathy for Gollum, unlikeable creature that he was. And why should we not have empathy for Gollum's agony? Think of it! He lost the Ring in 2941 and spent 78 years of pain without it. The pain of its loss shrivelled him and ground him down like wheat between two stones.

But, let's see. Isn't there someone who was forced to endure it's loss for an even greater period of time? Say, 3019 years? Shouldn't we have some sympathy for Sauron?

[Inziladun]

Nice one, Mithadan!
Sauron obviously wanted the Ring as an instrument of power, but would he have been in thrall to it in the same manner as others who desired it?
After all, it was basically himself, wasn't it? The power and will within the Ring were at first part of him. Gollum, Isildur, Boromir, and even Saruman were striving to attain power that was not native to them in their beginning, whereas Sauron was attempting to regain that portion of his divine ability he had lost.
Sauron certainly never gives any indication that he becomes as pitiful as Gollum in his desire for the Ring. In fact, he was able to rebuild his strongholds and armies , and manage a war quite adequately without it. It is to me beyond argument, however, that lust for the Ring was in the end his undoing, as the thought that Aragorn or someone else might claim it caused him to mismanage things at the end and allow the Ring-bearer into Mordor.

[Hakon]

I cannot have sympathy for Sauron. As Inziladun said the ring is part of himself. He just wants something that is him back. It is like when someone was once in good shape and they are now obese, they want to lose the wait and get back that old body. To Sauron the ring is the old body. He wants it more than anything. I always feel bad for Gollum though, it is like he could not possibly escape the power of the ring and had to give in to it. I also feel sympathy for the Nazgûl.

[radagastly]

The only answer to any question you might have on this issue is, NO! Sorry, but there is no scenario in which Sauron might "come clean!" He never tried to "come clean," he never wanted to "come clean," He never gave a @#*T% about Aman's feelings (Much less, Middle Earth's.) While within Tolkien's Middle Earth, there may be variations of just how evil someone is, but there is no question about just how evil The Dark Lord is, regardless of anything he might do to persuade.

[Hakon]

Well if someone is evil or not is simply perspective. You have to remember that when you are discussing good and evil.

[Morthoron]

Sauron is a cipher -- a faceless blank. There is little to like about him, or anything to feel sympathetic about. He is not an anti-hero on the monumental level of Satan in Milton's Paradise Lost, and Tolkien did little to flesh out the character; whereas Milton created a Puritan's version of James Dean -- a rebel with claws, so to speak. Clearly Satan is the most interesting character in Paradise Lost (to both the reader and to Milton himself), so much so that the poet William Blake stated of Milton:

"The reason Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of Angels and God, and at liberty when of Devils and Hell, is because he was a true Poet and of the Devil's party without knowing it."

We do not sense the rebel in Sauron as we did with Morgoth. Sauron is more Morgoth's accountant, a dry piece of toast who learned much from Morgoth's mistakes, preferring to work his evil through others, and hence the making of the Rings of Power in the first place. We only get hints and snatches of Sauron's character in condensed form in the Akallabêth and Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age , and he is a far more intriguing character in the 2nd Age than ever he was in the 3rd.

Simply put, we cannot sympathize with Sauron because we really don't know him. Tolkien never gave us the opportunity.

[Mithadan]

Sauron is more Morgoth's accountant, a dry piece of toast who learned much from Morgoth's mistakes

Morthoron, if we had a Hall of Fame for best qoutes by a poster, I would nominate this one for enshrinement.

Inzildun understands what I am suggesting here. I am not advocating for sympathy or forgiveness for Sauron. Nor am I suggesting he was capable of redemption by the time of LoTR. While Of the Rings of Power suggests that he acted remorseful before Eonwe at the conclusion of the First Age and that he may, indeed, have felt guilt and sorrow for his evils, by the Third Age Sauron was clearly beyond redemption. Compare the death of Saruman with the final fall of Sauron. Saruman's spirit or shade at least goes so far as to look to the West before dissipating. Sauron's, instead, as its last act, impotently threatens the Army of the West. He has no forgiveness left in him at that point.

But what I am really talking about is the torment Sauron must have experienced at the loss and absence of the Ring. If Gollum and Frodo are representative examples, the loss of the Ring is akin to perpetual withdrawal from a physical addiction. It is pure agony. Does Sauron experience this? And if he does, would you have sympathy for him at least as regards his suffering?

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

But what I am really talking about is the torment Sauron must have experienced at the loss and absence of the Ring. If Gollum and Frodo are representative examples, the loss of the Ring is akin to perpetual withdrawal from a physical addiction. It is pure agony. Does Sauron experience this? And if he does, would you have sympathy for him at least as regards his suffering?

I am sure Sauron suffers perpetual torment away from his Ring - it is a part of himself, after all. Moreover, it is the pinnacle of his craft, like with Feanor and the Silmarils.
I have plenty of sympathy for Sauron.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

But what I am really talking about is the torment Sauron must have experienced at the loss and absence of the Ring. If Gollum and Frodo are representative examples, the loss of the Ring is akin to perpetual withdrawal from a physical addiction. It is pure agony. Does Sauron experience this? And if he does, would you have sympathy for him at least as regards his suffering?

First, thank you for the compliment, Mith.

Second, I was aware of the question you raised regarding Sauron's possible suffering. I was inferring that we could in no way sympathize with Sauron in Lord of the Rings, because Tolkien does not allow us. We do not understand Sauron's motivations (save, of course, the basest and most imperialistic). There is a certain empathy we feel for the tortured soul of Gollum, because we came to know him well in The Hobbit and LotR. He is perhaps one of the three or four funniest characters in the books, and we are always captivated by the funny bad guy, aren't we? Sauron, on the other hand, is always looming and omnipotent.

If you are like me, you read the Hobbit and LotR before the Silmarillion was published, and I did not get pertinent information and a fuller picture regarding the Dark Lord until reading the LotR Appendices after completing the story. We meet Sauron with a sense of dread in the Hobbit, where he is simply the nameless Necromancer, and even in LotR he is the faceless great burning eye. There is not much there to get hold of, and literally nothing that resembles aspects of our own lives (nothing gains sympathy more than shared experiences or familiar pains).

Third, did Sauron experience pain having the Ring withheld from him? I don't believe it was the same agony incurred by Frodo or Gollum -- Sauron was of the Ainur and a great Maia, after all, and did not experience the same pains even Gandalf felt because Sauron did not have to bottle his Maiaric power in the mean confines of a human body as the Istari did (Sauron's corporeal manifestions as the beautiful Annatar and the foreboding black Lord of Mordor are more deified than human). What Sauron suffered was nagging doubt, which is a feature Tolkien instills in almost every great villain of his works (certainly Morgoth, Sauron and Saruman). The intense anxiety Sauron suffers seems inordinate to an immortal from a logical sense, but is in line with models in Greek myth. This fear and doubt caused Sauron to 'blow his wad early' on a number of occassions, which is uncharacteristic of a deity who planned patiently over thousands of years the downfall of Numenor, Arnor and Gondor. Though uncharacteristic of his overarching and grandiose multimillenial plan for domination, his sometimes rash, ill-timed and undisciplined actions directly relate to the loss of the Ring or the fear of someone else wielding the Ring. The Ring in essence defeated the maker on several levels.

[alatar]

I don't have any sympathy for Sauron. Gollum receives a little, as for a short while he reforms, but Sauron?

Gollum, as said, murders his friend to get the Ring, and so we can say that it has a powerful effect on those that are aware of it. But Bilbo never murdered anyone, and Merry, catching a glint of this gold in the Shire, does not seek to do the old Hobbit in. Gandalf does not take the Ring, nor does Elrond or Galadriel (and think of all of the persons in their respective households). Sam, the best of friends, relinquishes the Ring by his own free will. Frodo, though caught at the very end, does not murder anyone - Sam - during his whole trial. Boromir, even when caught in the frenzy of the Ring, turns back and does the right thing.

And so why should we have any sympathy for its Maker, as many many mere mortals are in the proximity of the Ring and yet resist its temptations? Sauron *chose* to do this thing.

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

I don't think Sauron is written in a way that one can have sympathy for him. We don't get to know him nearly as well as we come to understand Gollum/Smeagol. Sauron isn't written to be as tragic and pitiable a figure as Gollum. He brought whatever suffering or anxiety he suffered upon himself when he bit off more than he could chew in creating the Ring and making a bid for world domination in the first place.

I also don't know how capable Sauron is of feeling much beyond anger and greed. He's certainly not human in either a literal sense, being of the Maiar but not forced to take a human form. Not being even as "human" as, say, Gandalf or Saruman, does he feel at all? Or is he all cold calculation? How far down that dark road can one soul go before it ceases to be just that?

Also, I think perhaps any anguish that he would have felt at losing the Ring probably got channeled, over the years, into just what we see in him relating to the ring: a fierce drive to do whatever it takes to get it back.

[Annunfuiniel]

Originally Posted by alatar

And so why should we have any sympathy for its Maker, as many many mere mortals are in the proximity of the Ring and yet resist its temptations? Sauron *chose* to do this thing.

I think Sauron chose many things, beginning with the forging of the rings and then going on with his war even after the Ring was lost and especially after it was found again. But after the One Ring was made I doubt he had the ability to resist its temptations. For it was an essential (even indispensable) part of his very being:

"And much of the strength and will of Sauron passed into that One Ring; for the power of the Elven-rings was very great, and that which should govern them must be a thing of surpassing potency;" (Silmarillion: Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age)

And from the Letters: "if the One Ring was actually unmade, annihilated, then its power would be dissolved, Sauron's own being would be diminished to vanishing point, and he would be reduced to a shadow, a mere memory of malicious will."

He could of course, as witnessed, "live" without his ring but I'd imagine it as something equal to having your right hand amputated. Or rather – both hands and legs. And he undoubtedly experienced the phantom limbs –phenomenon, in its extreme: the most vital part of his being (not his physical body; this has been discussed earlier) was no longer there, yet he could definitely feel it and one can only imagine how it must have "itched" and "burned"... Maybe it wasn't pain as we mortals experience it but then again, maybe it was something "more", beyond our comprehension and endurance. Can't explain this very well...

Yet, to set the record straight, I have no empathy for Sauron. He caused such irreparable damage and suffering that it would be near impossible to forgive him even had he chosen to repent. I'm loth to deliver death penalties (as I'm quite unable to give life to those that die but deserve to live...); had things gone otherwise and Sauron had lived despite the destruction of the ring I'd rather that he had been imprisoned and would suffer until the Last Battle. Or better yet: he should have been sentenced to community service to try and amend some of his evildoings (there would have been a loooot to do in the Brown Lands, for example).

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

I can't feel any real sympathy for Sauron. He didn't stumble into his troubles in life; he made choices that led him to them. If he felt tormented by the loss of the Ring... well, he should've thought of that possibility when he made the thing in the first place. Narrowness of vision does appear to be one of Sauron's problems (made worse by hubris). As he couldn't envision anyone else wanting to destroy his Ring, he probably couldn't imagine anyone being strong enough or lucky enough to take it from him. One would think that feeling torment over its loss would've led him to learn to consider all the possibilities of what might occur should it fall into the hands of his enemies, but it clearly didn't.

I agree with Morth, he's a dry piece of toast, and worse. He had the example of Morgoth from which to learn, and to some extent he did, but he didn't learn that he should never underestimate his enemies, or the vagaries of "luck," as it is called. He made his Ring to be the Ultimate Weapon that would enable him to rule the world, he got walloped twice while in possession of it, and still didn't stop to consider all possibilities when facing another war without it. If I feel any pity for him, I suppose it's because for a fearsome Dark Lord, the guy just isn't all that bright.

[Mithadan]

I truly regret using the word "sympathy" in any of my posts in this thread, as it has detracted from the real question. Of course, Sauron is not a sympathetic character. In some ways, he is even less sympathetic than Morgoth. Morgoth is Loki; the trickster, the eternal rebel and contrarian. If someone says to him "white", he responds with "black" because of who he is. The Valar raise a mountain and he flattens it. The Valar fill a sea and he empties it. He is truly evil, yet at times it is evil in a faintly charming way, in the same way that we sometimes appreciate a scoundrel. Moreover, we do not see him clearly. He is somewhat nebulous, like a great cloud on the horizon. While we don't see Sauron clearly either, at least during the Third Age, we do learn a lot more about his evil acts (three Ages worth) than those of Morgoth.

The real (intended) topic of this thread is simply whether or not Sauron suffered the same type of torment that the other Ringbearers did when deprived of their "Precious". Yes, the essence of the Ring and its power derives from Sauron; he stripped himself of much of his native strength and infused the Ring with it. But this does not mean that he does not suffer from the loss of the Ring. Indeed, the taking of the Ring from him by Isildur "kills" him.

When he manages to reassemble himself, Sauron does not return to Mordor. Instead, he sets up shop in Dol Guldur, near the Gladden Fields where Isildur disappeared. Yes, Dol Guldur is a great place to hide, yet it seems he had no problem doing so in the East. Nor does Dol Guldur have any over-riding strategic value. It is not near his primary enemy, Gondor. It is near Anduin, but does not give him control of the river. It is near Moria, which has already been abandoned by the Dwarves. It is near Lorien, but he clearly does not have the strength to attack Galadriel at that time. Even during the War of the Ring, any attacks staged from Dol Guldur were of secondary import at best. No, he occupied Dol Guldur primarily as a location from which to search for the Ring and, perhaps secondarily to create an evil presence to scare anyone else away from the neighborhood. This resembles the single-minded pursuit of the Ring that we see in Gollum.

Yet, when he does discover the location of the Ring, his efforts to take it or intercept it are almost lackadaisical. This would seem contrary to the concept of the Ring being a tormenting, driving force to Sauron. He seems willing to risk it being hidden or falling into the hands of one of his enemies, under the apparent assumption that he will inevitably prevail militarily.

Much is made of Bolbo's choice to surrender the Ring to Frodo. It was difficult, but he managed to do it. Someone else voluntarily laid down the Ring; Sauron. It seems that when the Numenoreans assailed him and he surrendered, he left the Ring behind, likely in the deepest vault of Barad-Dur, and took it up again after he had crafted himself a body following the drowning of Numenor. So, maybe the Ring did not exert such a hold upon him as it did upon its Mortal bearers.

[Formendacil]

Well, regarding Sauron being able to put aside his Ring (Númenor), that strikes me as, in a sense, a case of self-mastery. The Ring, after all, IS Sauron. It's his essence that is diffused through it, and which gives it its power. It occurs to me that there might a sort of analogy that could be made with addictions: for anyone else, there are physical side-effects of withdrawal, since a foreign substance (object rather) that the "user" has become accustomed to having has been withdrawn (or willingly given up, as in Bilbo's case), as well as any psychological trauma, but in the case of Sauron it seems much more like giving up a habit, because insofar as the Ring is an extension of himself, he's really just stopped using that part of himself--the distinction here being that Sauron has stopped using something natural to him (natural in a sense anyway), whereas any other Ringbearer is having to stop using something that is not natural to him--a foreign substance, so to speak.

I do stress, however, lest the topic go that way, that I do not see the Ring as an allegory for drugs so much as drugs being a useful allegory for the Ring.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

Someone else voluntarily laid down the Ring; Sauron. It seems that when the Numenoreans assailed him and he surrendered, he left the Ring behind, likely in the deepest vault of Barad-Dur, and took it up again after he had crafted himself a body following the drowning of Numenor. So, maybe the Ring did not exert such a hold upon him as it did upon its Mortal bearers.

Sorry, but no. Sauron did take the Ring with him to Numenor:

He naturally had the One Ring, and so very soon dominated the minds and wills of most of the Númenóreans.” -L #211

Though reduced to ‘a spirit of hatred borne on a dark wind’, I do not think one need boggle at this spirit carrying off the One Ring” back to Middle-earth after the drowning of Númenor. -L #211

I think he was able to make the One invisible, much in the same way as Galadriel, Gandalf etc concealed the Three. What helped was that Ar-Pharazon had no idea that the One existed in the first place: the Elves always kept the matter secret from their human allies:

I do not think Ar-Pharazôn knew anything about the One Ring. The Elves kept the matter of the Rings very secret, as long as they could. In any case Ar-Pharazôn was not in communication with them.-L #211 (280)

Apart from that, even if Sauron was mentally strong enough to part from the Ring willingly even for a short time, he couldn't do so, IMO. He needed to wield the Ring to control the Nine and the Seven and to prevent the bearers of the Three to wear and use their Rings as they did in the TA.

If he left the Ring in Barad Dur how could he be sure that his Nazgul won't steal it? To be 100% sure of their loyalty, he would have had to take the Nine Rings from them and to take these in Numenor with him instead of the One - a silly solution.

[Morsul the Dark]

Sauron assumed the ring had been destroyed.... Or so one would assume considering his lack of action over 3000 years. If he had been so agonized over its loss but knew it still existed he would have started looking for it much sooner, in my opinion.

I mean the wraiths supposedly could sense it when it was worn so they should have been sniffing around the misty mountains for those last 500 years when Gollum wore it constantly.

So no I don't feel sorry for Sauron because to me his actions seem to suggest he did not lament the ring.

Of course when he found out the ring still existed everything went to hell. but I think it was simply a loss of patience. He would have won if the ring remained unfound it just would have taken more time. He wanted two things his full power back and to protect the ring.

He (in my opinion) knew the ring was his only weakness, that is why He hunted it so desperately. He simply didn't think a hobbit would know how to destroy it. So that is why he moved on Minas Tirith and Saruman went up against Rohan. the two last bastions of power in Middle Earth.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I disagree, Morsul. Had the Ring been 'put to the sword', so to speak, Sauron would certainly have known, as he would have been reduced to some sort of ghost creature. The Ring was a great part of Sauron, but no great part of him was destroyed, so he can't have had any reason to think the Ring destroyed. He must have assumed it was lost, probably in the Great Sea. His fervent action came after he learned the Ring had been found, and wasn't lost anymore.

But to answer the original question, no I don't think Sauron suffered. The other Ringbearers suffered because the power of Sauron had corrupted them; Sauron himself could hardly be corrupted by his own power. Sauron's suffering came from the thought that a mighty Lord of Middle-earth could use his own power against him.

[Mithadan]

Regarding the question of whether Sauron had the Ring with him in Numenor, there is a nice thread from some years back on this issue (in which I made many of the same arguments raised here by Gordis ). This thread can be found at the following link: http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthr...n+numenor+ring.

To put that thread in context, that discussion arose at around the time when various members were debating the relative "reliability" of sources outside the primary works (such as Letters, HoME, Unfinished Tales and even whether the Silmarillion should be considered a "primary work"). While the letter quoted by Gordis and the other letter quoted in the linked thread seem absolute, there is some text that suggests or implies that Sauron did not take the Ring with him to Numenor, and there exist valid arguments that this was the case if one chooses to discount the letters.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

I think that if Sauron suffered because of the loss of the Ring, it was not the same kind of torment that lesser bearers of it would have felt. Sitting there for three thousand years without it, his "torment" would have been, I think, bitterness and anger, mostly directed toward the Men and Elves who deprived him of his Ring and its power. I rather doubt he would have consciously blamed himself for not considering the possibility of its loss, but like most profoundly bitter and angry persons who are in denial of their own part in their current circumstances, it would have gnawed at him, even unacknowledged. And yet, that bitterness and anger often comes to dominate the lives of those who will not let go of it.

So did he feel some kind of torment over the loss of the Ring? Psychologically, yes, I imagine he did. Was it the kind of suffering for which I could pity him? Not really, no more than I could feel sympathy for an abuser who is upset because his victim finds a way to stop the abuse. Of course, there's a huge amount of personal experience behind this train of thought, so take it as you will.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

No, he occupied Dol Guldur primarily as a location from which to search for the Ring

Not at all. Sauron had no inkling what had become of the Ring until the very late Third Age. Circa TA 1000 he couldn't return to Mordor- Gondor was at the height of its imperial power, and Mordor was closely guarded. Why southern Mirkwood? The real reason of course was that T had said so in The Hobbit. But if we must back-write, it seems clear that Sauron wanted a place where he could remain concealed and his identity secret, while at the same time keeping an eye on his enemies. Amon Lanc was centrally located, hard to reach, and close to both the frontier provinces of Gondor and the main traffic artery of Middle-earth, as well as the Hithaeglir where Orcs still lurked. Lorien wasn't a factor, since Galadriel would not take up residence there for another 1800 years.

According to The Tale of Years, when Gandalf re-enters Dol Guldur in TA 2850, he learns who the Necromancer is, and that he is "seeking for news of the One." While Sauron would have known the Ring still existed, there is no reason at all to think that he knew what had happened to it, or even if it was still in Middle-earth. Only a century later, ca. 2939, does Sauron begin to search the River near the Gladden. From this Saruman concludes that Sauron "has learned of Isildur's end;" unsaid but just as important, Sauron has finally learned that Isildur took it in the first place.

[alatar]

Was Cirdan tormented by the loss of Narya, when the Shipwright gave it over to Gandalf, meaning, when a Ring was in alignment with the character of the bearer (good=good), and the relative power of said Ring was close to that of bearer (maia=very old elf or maia), all factored with the amount of exposure, there wasn't so much torment at the loss.

Sauron, maker of the One, voluntarily sets it down. Cirdan gives his away.

Sam has a little torment; Frodo much more. Bilbo not too much, and Gollum, though wicked, was conflicted - on the edge of good and evil - and so very tormented.

On the other hand, something's not adding up...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

But were the 'unsullied' Three addictive like the Sauronian rings?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by alatar

Was Cirdan tormented by the loss of Narya, when the Shipwright gave it over to Gandalf, meaning, when a Ring was in alignment with the character of the bearer (good=good), and the relative power of said Ring was close to that of bearer (maia=very old elf or maia), all factored with the amount of exposure, there wasn't so much torment at the loss.

I would question whether the Three fostered the sense of possessiveness that were hallmarks of the other Great Rings.
They were made with different purposes and had some obvious dissimilarities.

Edit- x'd with WCH

[alatar]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

But were the 'unsullied' Three addictive like the Sauronian rings?

Maybe that's what I'm asking? If not, then it's something about the Ring or Rings that Sauron made. Were the Seven or the Nine addictive? If not, then it's all about the One. And if so I would be hesitant to think that Sauron was addicted to his own.

[Boromir88]

Interesting question about the 3 elven rings. Even after the one was destroyed, the 3 supposedly lost their power, but Elrond, Galadriel, and Gandalf all keep them. That doesn't necessarily mean an addiction to their rings, but the Elves weakness was their inability to change. They wanted to preserve the way things were, and stay unchanged...the Elven Rings (at least for Elrond and Galadriel) did this. When the One is destroyed, I wonder if with the loss of power in their Rings, the fading of Lothlorien and Rivendell, if the trip to the Undying Lands was part of the Elves inability to accept change? And in the ability of the Elven Rings to protect, preserve, and even slow time and decay, if that is what the Elves were addicted to?

[Pitchwife]

Sorry for going far off-topic, but I can't help it.

Originally Posted by Mithadan

Morgoth is Loki; the trickster, the eternal rebel and contrarian.

No, no, and no again! While the trickster certainly is the eternal rebel and contrarian, con-man and deceiver, he is also a beneficial culture-hero (think of Prometheus in Greek mythology); not to forget his humorous side, always making fun of himself and others. Loki contains all these aspects - he even was involved in creating the first human couple (if you accept that Loður in the Voluspa is another name for him), not to mention all the times he helped the Gods out of serious trouble (like getting Thor's hammer back, getting the better of the Giant architect who built Valhall, etc.; true, in some cases he got the Gods into the trouble first, but there's always both sides in him).
None of this in Morgoth, who is simply destructive and power-crazy. The early Melko of BoLT may have had some Loki-like traits: offering to build the pillars for the Lamps of the Valar, only to cheat them by making the pillars of ice that melted once the Lamps were ignited - now, that's something Loki might have done. But as far as I can see, all this was completely lost later; and as for the creative side of the trickster, that's entirely absent in Morgoth.

Sorry again for this off-topic post, but I just couldn't stand by quietly and hear my favourite Norse God wronged. Please proceed.

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

I disagree, Morsul. Had the Ring been 'put to the sword', so to speak, Sauron would certainly have known, as he would have been reduced to some sort of ghost creature. The Ring was a great part of Sauron, but no great part of him was destroyed, so he can't have had any reason to think the Ring destroyed. He must have assumed it was lost, probably in the Great Sea. His fervent action came after he learned the Ring had been found, and wasn't lost anymore.

But to answer the original question, no I don't think Sauron suffered. The other Ringbearers suffered because the power of Sauron had corrupted them; Sauron himself could hardly be corrupted by his own power. Sauron's suffering came from the thought that a mighty Lord of Middle-earth could use his own power against him.

yes but did he know that he would perish if the ring did? perhaps he thought that power was destroyed but he remained

[Boromir88]

yes but did he know that he would perish if the ring did? perhaps he thought that power was destroyed but he remained~Morsul

Another interesting question...

When Sauron was beaten, and the Ring cut from his finger by Isildur, I think there were a couple reasons why Elrond et all didn't force Isildur to destroy the Ring.

First, it's Isildur, Elrond and Cirdan were really not in a position to force him to do anything with the Ring. Isildur had claimed it as payment for the death of his father and brother (an arguably legal claim).

But also, no one expected Sauron to be able to rebuild. I believe they just suggested for Isildur to destroy it because it would sort of "cleanse" the world from Sauron's evil. But, it isn't figured out until...well the Council of Elrond that the only way to prevent Sauron from reforming again would be to destroy the Ring.

What's also interesting is in the Appendix, In the TA 2060 it is feared by the wise that Sauron is reforming. However, he does not start trying to start gathering news about Isildur and the Ring until 2850. I don't think this is mere laziness by Sauron, yes he retreats int the East for a while, but he had went to Dol Guldur by 2460. Perhaps Sauron believed the Ring was destroyed? But after finding out about Isildur's death near Gladden fields he figured out the Ring was not destroyed and began searching.

[Hakon]

I am sure Sauron would have known if the ring wad destroyed. The ring is part of himsef. He would know. I think that Sauron thought the ring was lost forever as someone above said lost in the great sea.

[Boromir88]

I disagree, the fact that the Ring needed to be destroyed wasn't known until after the fact that Isildur cut the Ring from Sauron's finger and Sauron reformed.

Sauron was a Maia, who was not bound to the laws that Gandalf and the other istari were about a physical form, he had enough power to reform whether he ever created the Ring or not. So, why would the fact that he could reform after losing the Ring indicate the Ring was not destroyed? Now once he created the Ring, his power was bound to it (or "in rapport" with Sauron as Tolkien describes in a letter to Milton Waldman), so when the Ring is destroyed so would Sauron and his power would be gone, but when did Sauron figure this out? The bond between the Ring's power and Sauron's could have just been kind of like a side effect, or an unintended consequence. Hindsight bias makes things as clear as mud.

[Hakon]

I think he would have known that destroying the ring would destroy him. The ring is him, he made the ring so it seems obvious that he would have known that if the ring was destroyed he would lose his power. He poured all of his power, cruelty and more into that ring. It makes sense that he would know that he would either lose all his power or lose a lot of his power if the ring was destroyed. He still had a link with the ring once it was lost but he needed someone to put the ring on to sort of activate that link.

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Interesting question about the 3 elven rings. Even after the one was destroyed, the 3 supposedly lost their power, but Elrond, Galadriel, and Gandalf all keep them. That doesn't necessarily mean an addiction to their rings, but the Elves weakness was their inability to change. They wanted to preserve the way things were, and stay unchanged...the Elven Rings (at least for Elrond and Galadriel) did this. When the One is destroyed, I wonder if with the loss of power in their Rings, the fading of Lothlorien and Rivendell, if the trip to the Undying Lands was part of the Elves inability to accept change? And in the ability of the Elven Rings to protect, preserve, and even slow time and decay, if that is what the Elves were addicted to?

Another possible reason why the three were taken by their owners to the grey havens may have been as a safeguard. Elrond says the three "will fail", when asked by Frodo post adventures. I tend to interpret this as mein that as of the moment he was talking the three hadn't failed yet i.e. the rings power would wane gradually like a dying battery. By the time of the sailing the Three were likey dimished in power, but diminished isn't the same thing as "dead". Even with lessened and failing power the Three may have just been too dangerous to be left on ME, and run the risk of falling into less ethical or wise hands than those which had held them when they were at full strength. Even in thier weakened state I would imagine an inexperianced hand could do a lot of damage with them; it was just safer that they go beyond the reach of anyone.

[alatar]

Pleased to meet you...hope you guess my name...

What I wonder is if Eru has any sympathy for either Melkor or Sauron. Tolkien was a Christian, and so surely read the parable of the prodigal son:

Originally Posted by Luke 15:11-32

Jesus continued: "There was a man who had two sons. The younger one said to his father, 'Father, give me my share of the estate.' So he divided his property between them.

"Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.

"When he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.' So he got up and went to his father.

"But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

"The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'

"But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate. For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate.

"Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 'Your brother has come,' he replied, 'and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.'

"The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. But he answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!'

" 'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' "

Now, surely this parable would necessitate Melkor or Sauron to make some attempt at repentance and reconciliation for Eru to act as the father in the parable, but did you ever wonder if, at the end of all things, after Dagor Dagorath, Eru opens his arms to those that fell away?

[Bêthberry]

I think more pertinent to this question than the parable of the prodigal son is the figure of Judas Iscariot.

[Gordis]

On a side-issue here:

Originally Posted by Mithadan

Regarding the question of whether Sauron had the Ring with him in Numenor, there is a nice thread from some years back on this issue (in which I made many of the same arguments raised here by Gordis ). This thread can be found at the following link: http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthr...n+numenor+ring.

To put that thread in context, that discussion arose at around the time when various members were debating the relative "reliability" of sources outside the primary works (such as Letters, HoME, Unfinished Tales and even whether the Silmarillion should be considered a "primary work"). While the letter quoted by Gordis and the other letter quoted in the linked thread seem absolute, there is some text that suggests or implies that Sauron did not take the Ring with him to Numenor, and there exist valid arguments that this was the case if one chooses to discount the letters.

Thanks for the link.
I think nobody has the right to disregard the clear statement in the Letters, especially when (IMO) it doesn't really contradict the text of "the Rings of Power and the Third Age": "He took up again the great Ring and clothed himself in power"
Sauron carried the Ring back to ME in spirit-form: he could carry it, but nor wield. He had to make himself a new body with a new finger before taking up the Ring again and starting to wield it. It took him about 100 years with the Ring in his possession.

Also nobody in this thread questioned the loyalty of the Ulairi, whether they could be trusted to guard the One back at the end of the SA or not. Some quoted UT, "the Hunt for the Ring," forgetting that the reason why Sauron could trust the Nazgul an Age later -in TA 3018 - was given: because he kept the Nine Rings himself, that's why. At the end of SA the Nazgul still wore their Rings, so to control them during his absence Sauron either had to keep the One or to take the Nine Rings to himself and carry these rings to Numenor. His options were limited.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I think more pertinent to this question than the parable of the prodigal son is the figure of Judas Iscariot.

That would be more like the story (thanks for all the help in fulfilling my plan; hope that you enjoy eternity in the pit); I was thinking more about reconciliation than thirty pieces of silver and the potter's field.

[PrinceOfTheHalflings]

Sauron was not a slave to his ring, so I don't feel the same sympathy towards him as I do for the other Ringbearers. You should feel more sympathy towards the Nazgul, who were once mighty lords but ended up being utterly subjected to Sauron's will.

I doubt that Sauron immediately knew that the Ring was not destroyed after Isildur took it. For one thing, Sauron was nothing more than a disembodied spirit at that time, and took a very long time to start regaining his powers. Also, Sauron would have assumed that Isildur would have eventually succumbed to the temptation to use the Ring and should have become a Dark Lord himself. Or else, if the Ring betrayed Isildur then surely someone else would have taken the Ring?

Instead, no new Dark Lord emerged. Clearly the Ring was either destroyed or lost, but for a long time it must not have been clear to Sauron exactly what had happened. The emergence of some mighty lord wielding the One was always Sauron's greatest fear, especially at a time when Sauron did not have the strength to oppose such a power and take the Ring back by force. Few could have controlled the Ring, but perhaps there were those with the strength to do so. Galadriel or Elrond, for example. Sauron would have especially feared someone of their stature as Ringbearers.

After a time, and it may have been many years, Sauron would have started to "rebuild" himself and must have realised that the Nazgul still existed and still were his servants. The fact that the Nine Rings still "worked" would have been the real clue that the One was out there somewhere, and it must be lost but still functioning, since no new Dark Lord had presented herself (or himself).

Incidentally, I don't think that the Nazgul could have ever taken the One. They were slaves to the One (and Sauron) and I doubt that they could have seized it, any more than you or I could grab a piece of lava from Mount Doom and hold it in our hands.

If the Nazgul were capable of seizing the One, then they could have done so on Weathertop. The reason why they instead stabbed Frodo with the Morgul-knife was to turn him into a wraith so that he (still bearing the Ring) could then be brought to Mordor where Sauron would have then taken the Ring from Frodo. Nothing would have given Sauron greater pleasure than to have taken the Ring from its latest bearer. He probably would have simply commanded Frodo to surrender it. Frodo would have been unable to resist Sauron's command even though the psychological/spiritual trauma of doing so would have reduced Frodo to a gibbering insect. The greatest punishment that could have been inflicted upon Frodo would have been to simply allow him to live on in Sauron's shadow, constantly tortured by the sight of the Precious on the Dark Lord's hand. After all, there is such a thing as malice and revenge...

[Mithadan]

Originally Posted by Gordis

Also nobody in this thread questioned the loyalty of the Ulairi, whether they could be trusted to guard the One back at the end of the SA or not. Some quoted UT, "the Hunt for the Ring," forgetting that the reason why Sauron could trust the Nazgul an Age later -in TA 3018 - was given: because he kept the Nine Rings himself, that's why. At the end of SA the Nazgul still wore their Rings, so to control them during his absence Sauron either had to keep the One or to take the Nine Rings to himself and carry these rings to Numenor. His options were limited.

Again, good points, but ones that are not clearly established in any way. As to whether Sauron physically held the Nine Rings, this has been debated several times before. One thread is here: http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthr...n+nazgul+rings . There is at least one older thread but I could not locate it. There is textual evidence going both ways.

As to Sauron's control over the Nazgul, after Isildur took the Ring, Sauron was not present and had neither the One nor the Nine. Yet there is no indication that the Nazgul rebelled or, indeed, did anything other than to wait for his return and advance his cause.

[Hakon]

This is a bit off topic from the current discussion. I just feel the need to say this because people keep saying they cannot feel sympathy or Sauron. If a woman loses her engagement ring, she is going to feel terrible about it. She will even worse if it was stolen. Imagine that pain she feels 100 times worse. That is the way Sauron probably feels after he loses the ring due to Isildur.