Talk:Sauron

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the article.

• Hood, Gwyneth (1988). "Sauron and Dracula". In Carter, Margaret L. (ed.). Dracula: The Vampire and the Critics. UMI Research Press. ISBN 0835718891.
• Kocher, Paul (2003). "Sauron and the nature of evil". Master of Middle-Earth: The Fiction of J.R.R. Tolkien. DelRey. ISBN 0345465601.
• Larsen, Kristine (2007). "Sauron, Mount Doom, and Elvish moths: The influence of Tolkien on modern science". In Anderson, Douglas A.; Drout, Michael D.C.; Flieger, Verlyn (eds.). Tolkien Studies, Volume 4. West Virginia University Press. ISBN 1933202262.
• Martinez, Michael (2003). "The Sauron Strategies". Understanding Middle Earth: Essays on Tolkien's Middle Earth. Vivisphere Pub. ISBN 1587761459.

Thauron

Anonymous user 220.245.149.25 has made a couple of edits giving Sauron the name of Thauron, can anyone provide a citation for this? The only place I can find a reference to this is the lotr wiki, so I'm dubious about the accuracy of the information. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of it, and it doesn't appear on the Thain's Book site, which is usually exhaustive about aliases. -- Elphion (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I know this is a (very) old entry, but I thought I'd mention that in the Appendix to the Silmarillion, there is an entry "thaur" (meaning "abominable"), stating "Sauron (from Thauron)" as an example. I don't think the name Thauron is found anywhere else though; but at least this name does exist and is not a typo/improvisation. 78.105.77.240 (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, good find. Foster has an entry for it too. I've added a ref in the article. -- Elphion (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

official indiscrepancy "one of the minor spirits created before the world"

Tolkien says that Sauron was a spirit created before the world, yet in The Two Towers, page 134., when recounting his fight with the Balrog, Gandalf says "...Far, far below the deepest dwellings of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things. Even Sauron knows them not. They are older than he.". So one would guess something living in the world could not have done its worldly work before the world existed. Perhaps they are other fallen Maiar like the 'Balrog' is? Though what is implied is that Sauron is not older than the world, perhaps not his physical form. 216.227.108.69 (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It is simply a nice turn of a phrase; you are overthinking it. Perhaps Tolkien, or Christopher Tolkien, would have said that it referred to Sauron's presence in Arda only; and that before he came to Arda with Melkor, there were already dark and evil things in the Middle-earth. But that's not what Tolkien had in mind when he wrote it. It's a just a rather poetical, somewhat philosophical phrase. Not everything in a sprawling, epic fantasy like LOTR is going to be consistent. That the work is as detailed and as consitent as it is, is rather amazing. 219.101.196.2 (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)Vainamoinen

IPA transcription faulty

The IPA transcription of the name "Sauron" (given at the beginning of the article) is faulty. It inserts a schwa following the diphtong _au_, making the name trisyllabic. There should be no schwa, just two syllables: SAU-RON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.55.60.112 (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would reflect the pronunciation rules given by Tolkien in Appendix E. The counter-argument would be that in English /aʊ/ is generally not followed by /r/ without the intervening /ə/. In fact the pronunciation string you object to is generated in the current text of the article by feeding / ˈ s aʊr ɒ n / to template:IPAc-en, which automatically converts /aʊr/ to /aʊər/. One can argue whether the pronunciation to be presented should reflect Appendix E or the usual English pronunciation (and there are periodic arguments in talk:Gandalf about just that). But I suspect the "usual" English pronunciation is actually /ˈsɔːrɒn/. -- Elphion (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Gandalf not much less powerful

The section "Before the creation of the world" quotes one of Tolkien's letter stating that Sauron was of a "far higher order" than e.g. Gandalf. However, in the Unfinished Tales, in Part Four, II ("The Istari"), there is a "brief and very hasty sketch of a narrative" that tells about the council of the Valar when they decided to send some Maiar to Middle Earth; and Manwe says: "Who would go? For they must be mighty, peers of Sauron, but must forgo might". This seems to indicate that the Istari were not really so much weaker than Sauron; and the reason they didn't go and kill him themselves was because they "forwent their might".

I'm not sure whether a hasty and unfinished note is more reliable than a finished, well-though-out and sent letter; however, at least mentioning it in the article might be a good thing. Also, the Tolkien might have not have formed a definite opinion himself on these "orders", and so while writing this letter he might have stated one thing, and wrote another some other time. In this case the latest writing should probably be recognized as correct, but in the Tales the only information given is that they date from after the completion of LOTR, which is also almost certainly true of the letter. Thus I think the letter should be presented as the main view, and the "hasty sketch" should only be included as a possible alternative.78.105.77.240 (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sauron definitely tied up a lot of his power in the stuff he made, as did Saruman, at the end. (And he lost a lot when he lost his body in Numenor.) Gandalf could have been as powerful as Sauron, one-on-one, but Sauron's minions magnified his effective power, and the ring was a big magnifier, if Sauron ever had gotten his hands on it. So Sauron probably started out alot more powerful than any of the Istari, and was effectively a lot powerful than any of them. I don't think order necessarily correlated to might, either, although it could have. Petronivs (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Is timeline correct? 2850 Gandalf discovered Sauron's identity?

This doesn't seem right. It says under the section "Necromancer of Dol Guldur" that Gandalf finally discovered the identity of Sauron in 2850. If Gandalf discovered his identity in 2850, then he would have known who was in the forest at the beginning of the Hobbit (which was 2941), and I don't believe he even knows the identity by the end of the Hobbit. Can someone confirm or deny that statement and explain?Jasonnewyork (talk) 05:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Appendix B says that Gandalf entered Dol Goldur (for the second time) in 2850, when he found Thrain and received his ring, and discovered at that time that the Necromancer was in fact Sauron. This agrees with Gandalf's account at the Council of Elrond, which, though it doesn't give dates, says that he entered Dol Goldur and discovered Sauron's identity, and subsequently urged the White Council to drive Sauron out; but due to Saruman's temporizing, Sauron was not driven out until the year that Bilbo found the Ring (2941). -- Elphion (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)