Sauron's lack of Death...

[Hookbill the Goomba]

A thought struck me last night while reading a bit of The Shadow of the Past. This is one of my favourite lines in Tolkien, but I think it says something about the whole drive of the narrative...

Originally Posted by The Shadow of the Past

"I am sorry," said Frodo. "But I am frightened; and I do not feel any pity for Gollum."
"You have not seen him," Gandalf broke in.
"No, and I don't want to," said Frodo. "I can't understand you. Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have let him live on after all those horrible deeds? Now, at any rate, he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death."
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends..."

While this is a famous line and certainly a favourite of many readers, I hardly ever really thought about it in regards to the rest of the story at large. Of course, it relates mostly to Frodo's relationship with Gollum and how that changes as soon as he meets him. But the point I want to discuss is how, in the end, Sauron is not killed, he is vanquished.

It seems an odd thing, doesn't it? They spend all this time and effort to destroy the ring, they go through war and hardship and in the end, no death blow is dealt to the enemy. Now, this probably has a lot to do with the fact that Sauron probably can't 'die', being a Miar. However, I still think it is an interesting point. So often in an adventure of this kind (evil tyrant seeks to destroy / take over world), the antagonist is killed by the hero. 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. Sorry if that's a spoiler for some of you.
But Sauron lives. Diminished, defeated; a lonely spirit wandering useless. But still 'alive' in some sense.

There seems to be a very personal angle to killing in the book, I've noticed. Those who the main characters kill are done so in close proximity. Gandalf's main point to Frodo is that he has not 'seen' Gollum. And when Frodo does, he has much more pity for him and spares his life. Whenever there is death in the story, they at least see the victim, it seems.

No one sees Sauron.

He is an invisible presence. Perhaps beyond pity, perhaps beyond reason. But still, he does not die.

Is there something about seeing, or meeting someone that Tolkien hold important in these instances? Sauron can only be judged on the actions his servants take, because he is not there any more. His servants die. He does not.

Discuss...

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

There seems to be a very personal angle to killing in the book, I've noticed. Those who the main characters kill are done so in close proximity. Gandalf's main point to Frodo is that he has not 'seen' Gollum. And when Frodo does, he has much more pity for him and spares his life. Whenever there is death in the story, they at least see the victim, it seems.

Basically, you're wondering why Sauron's 'death' is given such an impersonal glimpse, as opposed to other deaths we see in the books?
Realistically, it could hardly have been otherwise, in the confines of the story. During the Second Age, the Last Alliance was powerful enough to break into Mordor by force, and eventually lay siege to the Barad-dûr itself. A confrontation between Sauron and the leaders of his enemies, Elendil and Gil-Galad, followed. Personal combat was joined, and the Ring was cut from Sauron's finger, etc.
In the Third Age the West had no power to act against Sauron in that manner. They could not even defend their fortresses from him indefinitely, much less launch a serious attack on him. He does no personal fighting, and is never even seen by any of the main actors of the story. Seeing his de-bodiment at a distance was the best they could do.

[Faramir Jones]

I've posted much of what follows in the Music in middle-Earth thread, but feel that it's also relevant here.

Sauron is an enemy; but he is an enemy both immortal and of divine origin. Not only can he live forever; it appears that he cannot be 'killed' in any conventional sense. This makes him thousands of times more formidable than any human tyrant. This did make a difference, such as when the Mongols looked as if they would overrun Western Europe, they were stopped by the death of the Great Khan Ögedei in 1241. In Sauron's case, not only do you have the same person around; that person can afford to wait a long time for things to turn in his favour. He waited for centuries in the Third Age until Gondor began to decline and the watch it kept on Mordor ended. The Gondorians, Rohirrim and other enemies can't wait, as they would for a mortal foe, for him to either die, or to grow old and want to spend time with the grandchildren.

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.

Even if Sauron is not imprisoned, but a decision made to execute him instead, is such a thing possible? Can a Maia (or former Maia) be killed?

There are two disadvantages to being an immortal tyrant. First, you have accumulated a huge number of atrocities to your name over thousands of years. (I'm sure that Sauron would have made Mao and Stalin look pathetic by comparison.) You're therefore easy to hate. For example, I'm sure that the Gondorians haven't forgotten the betrayal of their last king.

Second, because you've been around so long, your enemies will have amassed a large amount of information about you. Know your enemy is an basic maxim of warfare. I believe that Aragorn II learnt a lot about Sauron, from written and oral sources, as well as from his own travels, and was thus able to use that knowledge to confront him using the Stone of Orthanc, and persuade him that he might have the Ring, encouraging him to make a premature attack on Gondor.

[shadowfax]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

It seems an odd thing, doesn't it? They spend all this time and effort to destroy the ring, they go through war and hardship and in the end, no death blow is dealt to the enemy. Now, this probably has a lot to do with the fact that Sauron probably can't 'die', being a Miar.

I can't remember the exact quote, but at the Council of Elrond, Elrond says something about solving the problems of now, and that future generations will have to solve their own problems.

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.

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

However, I still think it is an interesting point. So often in an adventure of this kind (evil tyrant seeks to destroy / take over world), the antagonist is killed by the hero. 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.

Is she though? In Prince Caspain we overhear a conversation in Aslan's How (??) where some of the evil creatures talk about bringing back the White Witch and saying a true witch never really dies.

Possibily the Green Lady from The Silver Chair is Jadis.

It is said that she is "of the same kind" as Jadis but this doesn't make sense since in the Magician's Nephew only Jadis entered Narnia and no others of her kind came with her.

[Pitchwife]

Interesting topic, Hookbill, and fine discussion, everybody!

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

So often in an adventure of this kind (evil tyrant seeks to destroy / take over world), the antagonist is killed by the hero. This is another way in which The Lord of the Rings differs itself from many others.

I'd have thought the typical fate of Evil Overlords was to be destroyed by their own secret super-weapon (or alternatively, to fall to their death in one of those bottomless shafts that seem to have been built into their abode/fortress/space station expressly for this purpose). If we take the Ring to be an externalization of (part of) Sauron himself, we see both versions combined in LotR.

Originally Posted by Hookbill

Or His Dark Materials where god is killed

If I remember correctly, he more or less died of old age. Unless you mean Metatron the impostor - didn't he fall into some abyss too (with a little help from Asriel and Mrs Coulter)?

(OK, getting serious now)

Originally Posted by Hookbill

There seems to be a very personal angle to killing in the book, I've noticed. Those who the main characters kill are done so in close proximity. Gandalf's main point to Frodo is that he has not 'seen' Gollum. And when Frodo does, he has much more pity for him and spares his life. Whenever there is death in the story, they at least see the victim, it seems.
[...]
Is there something about seeing, or meeting someone that Tolkien hold important in these instances?

Good observation. 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.
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.)

As for Sauron (or other Ainur) being killed - I think while they were incarnate (whether by their own choice or by increasing attachment to the matter of Arda), they could be 'killed' (in the sense of having their hröa destroyed) just like any other Incarnate. IIRC Morgoth's Ring says that Morgoth himself was 'executed' = 'killed' by the Valar at the end of the First Age, and something similar happened to Sauron at the hands of Elendil and Gil-galad.
Only that wasn't the end of them (but then again, neither is it for Men and Elves), and for Arda to be rid of Morgoth (if not of his marring) for good, his spirit had to be banished to the Void. But my feeling is that the more an Ainu had busied themselves with and grown attached to the matter of Arda as such, the less would their spirits be able to survive the separation from the hröa and still be able to do anything effective - which applies not only to Morgoth and Sauron, but also to Saruman (and is it coincidence in this context that the latter two were both Maiar of Aule the earth-smith?).

[Faramir Jones]

Shadowfax, it was Gandalf who said 'something about solving the problems of now, and that future generations will have to solve their own problems', in 'The Last Debate', after the Battle of the Pelennor Fields:

'Other evils there are that may come; for Sauron is himself but a servant or emissary. Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule.'

You may have confused this with the debate in the Council of Elrond, when it was suggested that the Ring be sent over the Sea. Elrond dealt very quickly with this idea, saying, 'they who dwell beyond the Sea would not receive it [the Ring]: for good or ill it belongs to Middle-earth; it is for us who still dwell here to deal with it.'

Regarding the Queen of Underland in The Silver Chair, her identity is left unclear by Lewis. In Chapter 15 of the book, after the Queen is killed, and Prince Rilian, Eustace, Jill and Puddlegum escape to the surface, the Prince discusses who she is with 'the older and wiser Beasts and Dwarfs':

And now they all saw what it meant; how a wicked Witch (doubtless the same kind as that White Witch who had brought the Great Winter on Narnia long ago) had contrived the whole thing, first killing Rilian's mother and enchanting Rilian himself.

My view of this is that these Narnians are speculating that she may be similar to Jadis, due to her appearance, considerable magical powers, and being evil. No indication is given if they know that Jadis came from another world, as told in The Magician's Nephew. Even if they did, it would be reasonable, from the information available to them, to place both her and the Queen under the heading of 'Witch'.

[Sarumian]

Originally Posted by Hookbill

So often in an adventure of this kind (evil tyrant seeks to destroy / take over world), the antagonist is killed by the hero. This is another way in which The Lord of the Rings differs itself from many others.

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).

Dealing with ainur makes it quite a tricky matter. Valla Melkor, the first Dark Lord, surrendered to Vallar's Great Host, wasn't properly killed, as it seemed to me, but rather made motionless and was cast into Void in his physical body. Sauron's destiny could've been something similar, had he surrendered, but that was never the case; thus the fight continued to the point where Sauron was unable to perform any physical act or to force any living creature to do something by his will. Sauron's capacity of living and acting was tied to The Ring since he had forged it. Sauron's counterparts had two options for winning: to use The Ring against Sauron (which would have left him alive, though enslaved) or to destroy The Ring (that led to the destruction of Sauron's body and diminishing of his spirit).

To sum up, Sauron died several times during the First and Second Age, but was able to restore his physical presence till his defeat in the War Of The Ring. On the other hand, his spirit had never died as any other spirit in Tolkien's universe. Neither Saruman's spirit was dead after he was murdered by Grimma, nor Gandalf's soul perished after the battle with Balrog. But it looks that fallen spirits were sentenced to stray in the world, suffering their own misery with no chance to influence anything.

What I am not sure about is the exact way of dying for

embodied Ainur;
elves;
men;
dwarves;
ents;
orcs

What happened to them?

[Dakêsîntrah]

That Sauron and other spirits cannot die is a problem Tolkien fails to deal with, either because he doesn't realize it, or he can't work it into his history, to meet with fair consistency.

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.

Tolkien obviously derives his mythology from the Biblical elohim. If Illuvatar is eternal "God," he ought to be able to destroy the lesser "gods" of Melkor and Sauron. They are created beings, thus, they are not eternal. Hence, Iluvatar is able to destroy them like Arda Beings. You see, it doesn't make sense for Iluvatar to let Melkor or even Sauron float around in the Void or wherever for eternity.

Just like the Biblical council of elohim (gods), there is an existing hierarchy of lesser gods. Melkor was a lesser Eru (elohim) "like unto Eru," while Sauron was a lesser Ainur, "like unto Melkor" (Maiar, angel, messenger, i.e, lesser elohim). Gandalf is also a Messenger, of that lower tier of gods. And this is where I believe Tolkien, either by misunderstanding Biblical narrative, or by not realizing it, departs from similarity. Gandalf is *not* a parallel of Christ, because Christ as the Son was not a simple messenger, i.e, a lower tier of elohim. I would see Gandalf as more of a parallel to Moses than anyone. Tolkien obviously derives his Ainulindalë from the Council of El in the Bible.

The question must be asked instead: We know after Sauron is defeated there ushers in the Fourth Age, the age of Men. Yet, there is really no fulfillment of redemption for Arda itself. The Men still live on a corrupted plane of existence. Hence, from all of this, I believe Evil was still not defeated after the Third Age. I think it's a pity that Tolkien died before having completed the mythology, because we do know how there arose yet another evil in the Fourth Age.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

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

I actually really like your post... but this line irks me greatly, and I cannot resist the impulse to respond.

While I agree that there is definitely a good parallel to me made, I am deeply hesitant to ascribe to Tolkien a knowledge of the Council of El from the Bible, which is the sort of Scriptural knowledge that I do not think would have been particularly commonplace in 1920 (to give a later date for the earliest phase of the mythology), and certainly wouldn't have been among Catholics. While the parallel certainly works--and may even have appealed to Tolkien--I think you're on very sketchy ground in terms of saying that this is where Tolkien got it from. Tolkien's own statements would seem to suggest that he was trying to emulate the Greek or Norse pantheons, and then to reconcile this with his own intractable Catholic beliefs, thus producing the hybridised Eru/Valar theological structure.

In this structure, however, the Valar are not "like unto Eru" in the same way that the Maiar are lesser Valar. On the contrary--the Valar are more like the Children, Elves and Men, than they are like Eru. As the Silmarillion says (I paraphrase), "they are like elder siblings" to the Children. Like the Children, they are created beings, whereas Eru is the Creator. To apply the Analogy of Being (which is how a good Catholic would think--even if not articulated thus), the greater the similarity between something in the creature and something in the creator, the greater the difference between them. There is a gulf of distinction between the infinite power of Eru and the finite (albeit vast compared with the Children's) power of the Valar.

My theologising about the nature of Eru may be importing too much "real world" philosophy--though I'm unapologetic--but hopefully my main point that I think it would be ridiculously sketchy to call the Council of El a certain source for Tolkien will come across. Otherwise, as I said, the analogy works (though as my digressions suggest, not perfectly), but declaring that a source seems highly unlikely unless you have evidence that Tolkien was well acquainted with Scripture and scriptural exegesis during the First World War.

[Faramir Jones]

Pitchwife referred briefly to what happened to Morgoth when he was defeated a second time, at the end of the First Age. Fellow fans might be interested to read the relevant passage in full:

The war was successful, and ruin was limited to the small (if beautiful) region of Beleriand. Morgoth was thus actually made captive in physical form, and in that form taken as a mere criminal to Aman and delivered to Námo Mandos as judge - and executioner. He was judged, and eventually taken out of the Blessed Realm and executed: that is killed like one of the Incarnates. It was then made plain (though it must have been understood beforehand by Manwë and Námo) that, although he had 'disseminated' his power (his evil and possessive and rebellious will) far and wide into the matter of Arda, he had lost direct control of this, and all that 'he', as a surviving remnant of integral being, retained as 'himself' and under control was the terribly shrunken and reduced spirit that inhabited his self-imposed (but now beloved) body. When that body was destroyed he was weak and utterly 'houseless', and for that time at a loss and 'unanchored' as it were. We read that he was then thrust out into the Void. That should mean that he was put outside Time and Space, outside Ëa altogether; but if that were so this would imply a direct intervention of Eru (with or without supplication of the Valar). It may however refer inaccurately to the extrusion or flight of his spirit from Arda. (The History of Middle-earth: X. Morgoth's Ring (London: Harper Collins Publishers, 1994), p. 403.)

[Faramir Jones]

Sarumian talked earlier about Sauron being able to restore his physical presence a number of times, though with increasingly greater difficulty. Tolkien talked about this in a letter he wrote on 25th June 1957, to a Major R. Brown:

It was because of this pre-occupation with the Children of God that the spirits so often took the form and likeness of the Children, especially after their appearance. It was thus that Sauron appeared in this shape. It is mythologically supposed that when this shape was 'real', that is a physical actuality in the physical world and not a vision transferred from mind to mind, it took some time to build up. It was then destructable like other physical organisms. But that of course did not destroy the spirit, nor dismiss it from the world to which it was bound until the end. (Letters, Letter 200, p. 260.)

Tolkien then spoke of Sauron, after the War of the Last Alliance, taking longer to re-build than he had after the Downfall of Númenor:

(I suppose because each building-up used up some of the inherent energy of the spirit, which might be called the 'will' or the effective link between the indestructible mind and being and the realization of its imagination). The impossibility of re-building after the destruction of the Ring, is sufficiently clear 'mythologically' in the present book. (Ibid.)

[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.

[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...)

[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?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Blind Guardian

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?

Blind Guardian, welcome!

Initially, all light came from the Lamps of the Valar, which were like two big street lamps, one at each end of the (flat) world. After these were toppled by Melkor, the Two Trees of Valinor lit Aman, and Middle Earth was dark. These Trees were murdered by Ungoliant (with Melkor's help), and their last fruits were 'hallowed' and placed into vehicles that traveled the skies. The sun craft was driven by Arien, who is like a female 'good' Balrog. The moon craft, driven round by Tilion, isn't as timely as the sun, and even got a little too close to the sun, and that's why we see those dark marks on the Moon.

Note that these popped up when humans arose, and so we don't know any different arrangement.

Anyway, until the world was bent, these crafts had to pass over the flat world, then make a trip underneath so that they could 'rise' from the same side each time (though once the Sun rose from the West!).

This process made them targets for Melkor, but, as we know, he never destroyed these lights (not that he didn't try). After the world became a sphere and Melkor was thrust into the Void, the sun and moon became safe.

It happened 'just so.' More could be said.

[Blind Guardian]

Interesting. Common sense is screaming at me that you can't destroy the sun and the moon and that the world isn't flat. I need to read the Silmarillion. Might I ask how Morgoth destroyed the sun and moon?





PS Every LotR word is in this Mac's dictionary O_O

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Blind Guardian

Interesting. Common sense is screaming at me that you can't destroy the sun and the moon and that the world isn't flat. I need to read the Silmarillion. Might I ask how Morgoth destroyed the sun and moon?

He didn't.
Not that he didn't desire it. There's a line in Silm about Arien being out of reach.

Middle Earth was a flat world according to the mythology. There was a great battle and an upheaval and lots of general unpleasantness and the earth was eventually 'bent' so that if one wished to go West, they would end up in the East.

Remember, Middle Earth is a mythology.

Now, on the topic of Sauron's lack of death...

I think what is striking about the difference between Morgoth and Sauron is that Morgoth is thrust from the world into a sort of 'hell' - the void. His direct influence is removed from Middle Earth. Yet, 'seeds' of his malice remain. Perhaps Sauron was one such seed.
Moreover, one must remember that all evil was not to be destroyed until the final battle. If this was part of Eru's grand plan, or the doom set in motion, perhaps, by the discord in the music, then it may be that that is why Sauron is not utterly removed from the world. He is neutralised and made to watch the world without influencing it. (Morgoth can't even watch, poor bloke). So, if there is this grand plan idea (not unthinkable if Tolkien took certain theistic views), some 'doom' for all evil, perhaps it's almost as if Sauron has been put into storage. Kept to wait for the end. A little, perhaps, like Loki, being chained until Ragnarok?

[Blind Guardian]

Yeah, you'd burn up once you got in to the atmosphere!




Something else I was thinking: when the Nazgûl fell off the Fell Beast or got stabbed by a sword, did it hurt? They did fall so many stories, and the Witch-King did get stabbed by Eowyn (ouch!) but didn't move, just let her stab him. I'm thinking that it must not hurt it's just annoying. What do you think?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Blind Guardian

Something else I was thinking: when the Nazgûl fell off the Fell Beast or got stabbed by a sword, did it hurt? They did fall so many stories, and the Witch-King did get stabbed by Eowyn (ouch!) but didn't move, just let her stab him. I'm thinking that it must not hurt it's just annoying. What do you think?

Not the topic of discussion. Start a new thread for that, though.

[Blind Guardian]

OK, sorry.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

I think what is striking about the difference between Morgoth and Sauron is that Morgoth is thrust from the world into a sort of 'hell' - the void. His direct influence is removed from Middle Earth. Yet, 'seeds' of his malice remain. Perhaps Sauron was one such seed.

Melkor was the first dandelion, me thinks.

[Lastande Took]

I'm not nearly as familiar with ME mythology as the rest of you seem to be ( ), so I'll keep it short. I think putting Sauron in 'storage' was the closest they could get to actually kiling him. He had put so much of himself into the Ring that when it was destroyed, he lost too much power to 'rebuild' a new body, much less his realm.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Lastande Took

I'm not nearly as familiar with ME mythology as the rest of you seem to be ( )

Don't worry, that's going to change soon enough if you hang around here for a while! Speaking for myself, I've learnt a lot of what I know about ME on this forum, both as a lurker and as an active member, and I think we're all still learning from each other all the time. Welcome, and I hope you'll enjoy yourself in our black-green wraith-world!

[Lastande Took]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Don't worry, that's going to change soon enough if you hang around here for a while! Speaking for myself, I've learnt a lot of what I know about ME on this forum, both as a lurker and as an active member, and I think we're all still learning from each other all the time. Welcome, and I hope you'll enjoy yourself in our black-green wraith-world!

Thanks for the welcome!