Talk:Sauron/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Sauron. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

(Early discussion)

Did anyone see the Family Guy episode where Stewie says something like "I'm in more trouble than when Sauron lost his contact lense.." and then it cuts to the eye looking around frantically going "Can anyone see it?! I think it might have gotten stuck on some rocks or a tree or something...god I am soo grounded..." That was so funny.

In "Before and during the First Age, Sauron was in origination an "angelic" spirit called a Maia in Tolkien's invented mythology" is the first part really needed? His origin didn't change after the First Age.

Also, do people think it makes sense to call the Silmarils "holy"? I realise that they hold the Light of the Trees, and burnt Morgoth when he touched them, but "holy" doesn't sound quite right to me.

Molinari

The lust and greed they inspired in all who coveted them was anything but holy. OTOH, they were the supreme artifacts of elvish power, of which the Rings of Power were mere pallid imitations. ...?...Lee M 02:17, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The problem lies in the fact that we really don't have a word other than 'holy' to apply. The Silmarils radiated the light of the Two Trees, the light itself may have been holy or sactified, but the Silmarils themselves surely were not. Additionally, they inspired lust in the viewer, a trait one doesn't normally apply to a holy object. Perhaps 'holy' should be changed to 'powerful,' or 'overwhelming.' 206.156.242.36 20:46, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the Silmarils were hallowed by Varda after Fëanor had created them, so that no mortal flesh, nor hands unclean, nor anything evil could touch them. "Hallowed" here has the same meaning as "holy". That said, holy ought to be replaced with hallowed wherever possible, as holy can also mean divine, whereas hallowed need not carry that meaning. [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 22:14, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Removed "Sauron, in a way, was wiser than Morgoth - he had never fallen as low as his master did." from first paragraph of First Age section. This is because I'm not sure wanting to dominate people rather than lands actually consists of not falling as low. (From one way of looking at the matter, it's worse.) If this is something Tolkien actually said, I'll be glad to stand corrected (although a citation would be appreciated).

Morgoth's Ring, "Myths transformed", Text VII: Notes on motives in the Silmarillion. The essay literally states "In this way Sauron was also wiser than Melkor-Morgoth". The essat discusses the difference between the mad lust for annihalation that powers Melkor-Morgoth, and contrasts this with the relentless desire for order present in Sauron.

Oh, and I removed "holy" so it just says "the Silmarils". I figure they are of such value that they speak for themselves. Actually, I just didn't know what word would be better, but I thought maybe just removing the adjective would suffice. --Aranel 00:13, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hallowed? [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 06:27, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The first paragraph has too many links

The first paragraph is close to unreadble due to the two parentical phrases and the many links. I made a possible change, but I'm not sure it's better. Any help would be appreciated. JesseW 08:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Eye of Sauron

Sauron was unable to assume shape AFTER Isildur cut the ring from his finger, I thought? This paragraph seems incorrect then (after all, if he was unable to assume a fair shape, how could they cut the One Ring from his finger?): From this point on he was unable to assume a fair shape, and ruled now through terror and force. A few faithful Númenóreans were saved from the flood, and they founded Gondor and Arnor in Middle-earth. These faithful Men, led by Elendil and his sons, allied with the Elven-king, Gil-galad, and together fought Sauron and, after long war, defeated him, although both Elendil and Gil-galad were slain. Isildur, son of Elendil, cut the One Ring from Sauron's finger and claimed it. But later the Ring betrayed him, so that Isildur was slain by Orcs, and the Ring was lost for centuries. MDesigner 10:54, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Nooo… only Peter Jackson thinks Sauron was shapeless, or just an eye. It is quite clear Sauron had taken shape by the time of Gollum's capture (after The Hobbit but before LotR: Gollum talked about Sauron's four-fingered hand. If Sauron had no shape, what hand would that be?

Sauron initially was able to assume any shape, and in the First Age had at least the following: -normal (human-like but terrible), -werewolf, -vampire bat. Sauron survived the First Age intact. In the Second Age he took a beautiful and fair human-like shape (as Annatar), and kept this shape at least until the War of the Elves and Sauron. Afterwards he appeared to have taken a terrible shape, although that is not entirely clear. In any case he was still able to change it at will before forging the One Ring, and it is not stated that in forging the One Ring he lost this power.

After the Downfall Sauron lost the ability to change his shape, and when he returned to physical form (after Gandalf ousted him from Dol Guldur, but before the events of the LotR) he only had his terrible shape. In any case it is 100% certain Sauron had a physical form again by the time Frodo destroyed the Ring, and therewith Sauron's power. Afterwards so little of Sauron was left he never was able to take form again. Jordi·✆ 11:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wow, they certainly changed a lot for the movie. So you mean the whole flaming eye on the tower of Barad-Dur was a creation of the screenwriters? Or the Eye of Sauron existed in the books too, but it was simply a way for him to see what's going on, while his physical form (as a body) was able to roam around? MDesigner 21:02, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Mostly, yes. The Eye of Sauron is in the books more or less equivalent with Sauron's attention: when the Eye is focused on someone, it means that Sauron and/or his forces are paying close attention there. On the other hand, the Eye is also seen by Frodo at Amon Hen, so it was a way Sauron presented his will. Jackson erred, in presenting the Eye as the form of Sauron, rather than just a (or the) representation of his will. When Pippin gazes in the palantìr, he sees Sauron's actual form: "Then he came" — and follows a description of evil mocking of Pipping by Sauron, and not by an Eye. Jordi·✆ 21:35, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't you think that we should make it more clear that Sauron was not a floating eyeball? It's a common myth nowadays, with Peter Jackson's supporting the Sauron-disembodied-floating-eye... I know it doesn't say that "Sauron is now an Eyeball" in the article, but it also doesn't say "Sauron is not an eyeball". Maeglin_Lómion

So perhaps the "simplest explanation" is that when Sauron is seen directly (including using the Palantir) his "humanoid" form is evident: his presence is sensed from a distance as an eye. It is also easier to direct the Nazgul and others to a given place by "showing" them where to go.

Jackiespeel 17:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Return of the King movie also made it clear that the Eye was not Sauron himself; particularly in the scene (in the extended version) where Aragorn looks into the Eye in the crystal ball and Sauron himself appears (within the pupil) telling him "Behold! Your precious Arwen" or something of the like. You can't quite make out what he's saying. At first it sounds like a Latin incantation, then it goes deep and plays out like a secret deep-voiced message from 1960's pop album run backwards. Saruman also implied Sauron's ability to take physical form by his comment "he cannot *yet* take physical form" (meaning: that he *will* eventually take physical form!) The word "yet" makes all the difference in meaning! The movie trilogy is filled with all sorts of subtle 1-word or 0-word cues (body gestures, looks, eye movements, etc.) like this, which serve as an equivalent substitute for what could take an entire passage in book form.

Myrddin_Wyllt -- May 21, 2007

Subtle or not, it's still wrong. 1) Sauron had taken on physical form at that point. It appears to be either a necessary or habitual prerequisite for him to act as "Dark Lord"; 2) Sauron knew nothing about Aragorn or his personal relationships. He didn't even know an heir of Isildur had survived or that Narsil had been reforged until Aragorn showed himself and the sword in the Palantir; 3) It is never said that anyone saw a flaming eyeball in the Palantir. A humanoid form is implied, rather. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This article should not be merged. "Sauron" is the specific being or character in question, while "the Eye of Sauron" is merely one of many ways in which he chose to manifest himself. If the two articles are to be merged, we may as well go ahead and merge them with articles referring to his other manifestations, namely Annatar and Gorthaur. In my view, these articles should all be seperate.

Sauron never "manifested" himself as an eyeball. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the "Eye of Sauron" was ever intended to be a physical manifestation of sauron but rather a metaphor for Sauron's implied omnipresence over those he ruled. My impression was that it was akin to the tyranical state. Also, while this idea is portrayed in the film as a physical eyeball, it doesn't ever implicitly state that the flaming eyeby IS Sauron. You can still consider it as metaphor even though we are seeing it on film. It is a way for the filmaker to show us how one is being "seen" by Sauron. Blackfeathor (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Pippin and the Palantir

"Peregrin Took...looked into one of the Palantiri, enabling (Sauron) to discover Frodo's location."

I find this statement rather odd - perhaps I've missed something rather important but surely Pippin doesn't actually _know_ Frodo's location at that point? Frodo escapes from the slopes of Amon Hen in secret, unknown to any of the rest of the company bar Sam (contrary to Peter Jackson's version, which alters events rather pointlessly IMO). IIRC the only hint as to his location that the rest of the company receives is from Gandalf, when Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli meet him in Fangorn, and Gandalf doesn't really tell them much there (memory might fail me at this point... I don't have the book to hand ATM.)

Further, Sauron is so excited at a Hobbit's use of the Palantir that he doesn't even divine what little Pippin does know of the company's plans - otherwise he surely would have followed the course Gandalf outlines to the three hunters in Fangorn (sealing Mordor up tight), so what basis is there for suggesting that Sauron learns Frodo's location, which it is difficult to imagine that Pippin knows anyway?

MockAE

You're right. The whole point is that Sauron doesn't figure out about Frodo. He already knows that there's a hobbit who has the Ring. What does end up getting revealed (intentionally!) - and what is much more important - is that Isildur's heir is on the move. I removed the questonable part. -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Sauron saw a Hobbit in Saruman's Palantir. It was fair to assume that he figured the Hobbit had to be a prisoner of Saruman. Sauron then assumed Saruman was tomenting the previous owner of the Ring by forcing him to view the Palantir. He figured Saruman now had the ring. "...Tell Saruman that this dainty is not for him. I will send for it at once. Do you understand? Say just that!...." With Aragorn revealing himself later, he now assumes he must have claimed the Ring for himself, or at the very least the ring is still in the West, not creeping closer to Mordor in stealth. --Gothaur 14:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have often wondered whether the "dainty" referred to the ring or to Pippin himself; or both. But you are absolutely right, Sauron undoubtadly thinks Saruman has captured the ringbearer-- and so doesn't immediately question him, to the doom of all. It's also interesting that Sauron, although he knows Saruman is a traitor to him, doesn't seem overly concerned about his possession of the ring. He warns him, through Pippin, that "it's not for him," but then "gloats" over Pippin, clearly pleased at this turn of events and not overly alarmed. That suggests he had a low estimation of Saruman's power and didn't truly fear him as a rival ringlord the way he feared Aragorn, Gandalf, and Galadriel. If Saruman withheld the ring, he was confident that either the Nazgul or He himself would defeat him and take it back. 169.253.4.21 (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)TexxasFinn

"Tell Saruman that this dainty is not for him..." A very strange phrase if Sauron was talking about Pippin. Virtually asking Pippin to talk in the third person. Nope its the Ring he refers to. Not the first time the Ring is refered to like this. The messenger atthe Lonely Mountain looking for a Trifling thing, a bauble.... --Gothaur (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Succeeded by himself?

Preceded by none	Dark Lord of Mordor circa 1600 SA— 3441 SA	Succeeded by himself
Preceded by Himself	Dark Lord of Mordor circa 2951 TA— 3119 TA	Succeeded by None

?Savidan 00:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, no one else claimed the title in the 2,500 years between the Seige of Barad-dur and his return to Mordor. -- SFH 05:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the box. Its just silly. As a general rule of thumb, if there is only one member of a line of sucession, a succession box adds nothing. Pure succession box-cruft. No one really defended the idea of their being a box, although I agree that there was no one who came in between him and himself. We can note this info in a non-boxy way in the article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I just felt it made better since to put one on him being the Dark Lord of Mordor than one on him being the bearer of the One Ring, but it's not something I'm willing to fight over. -- SFH 23:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The argument could certainly be made (as I have tried to do) that Herumor of "The New Shadow" DID succeed Sauron as the chief evil-doer/dark lord of Middle-Earth, but apparently there are others who don't share that view and don't want it stated, even with a disclaimer.

Actually, no, that argument couldn't be seriously made. All we know about Herumor, even if we accept TNS as canonical, is that he was a cult leader of some kind. He may have called himself "Dark Lord", which is more or less what "Herumor" means in Sindarin, but that doesn't make him one. Since the story about him was never written, the extent of his actual authority or influence is unknown. He may even have turned out to be peripheral, a figurehead for the real cult leader.

That's even if using a succession box for an "office" that had, at most, three occupants made any sense in the first place. I don't think it does. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My biggest issue was that there simply isn't any evidence to suggest that Herumor occupied anything like the role held by Sauron or Morgoth. It's the whispered name of a bad guy from a fragment of an abandoned story. Tolkien's description of the intended plot of that story makes him at most the leader of a minor group of malcontents... inevitable rot setting in and needing to be rooted out. It'd be like saying 'The Great Goblin' was the 'Dark Lord of Arda' prior to Sauron's re-appearance. Except there'd actually be more evidence for that because the Great Goblin appeared in published stories and actually controlled some territory. --CBDunkerson 11:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well stated. TNS is abandoned marginalia; interesting, but certainly not canon! And from the scant evidence the story provides, 'Herumor' indeed seems less weighty than a Goblin king like Bilbo's or Azog of Moria. Nice comparison. 169.253.4.21 (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)TexxasFinn

Metaphysics?

Shouldn't "metaphysical," repeatedly used to reference the Eye, be "metaphorical?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.77.124.62 (talk • contribs)

Actually, I think 'metaphysical' is the better term in this case. The 'eye' was not just a 'metaphor' for Sauron... it was an actual manifestation of his will which could be 'felt' and even seen in some cases. --CBDunkerson 21:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Second Age- odd phrasing

In the section on the Second Age, near the end there's discussion of the Rings of Power and this oddly written sentence:

"But the Three Rings, which the Elven smith Celebrimbor had forged himself without Sauron's help, were saved from remained in the hands of the Elves." (Emphasis mine)

Does anyone know what the author was trying to say here? I'm not really that familiar with the LOTR pre-history so I can't correct it, but this really should probably be re-written for grammar and construction. --40 Watt 17:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to; "However, the Three Rings, which the Elven smith Celebrimbor had forged himself without Sauron's help, were saved and remained in the hands of the Elves." --CBDunkerson 19:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

excellent... thanks!--40 Watt 21:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Return of the King My ass

One thing bothers me, Sauron replaced himself with one of his lackeys. and everyone is panicing like Sauron is already there. What gives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Ranger (talk • contribs)

What do you mean? I don't understand the question. Ted87 17:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the Mouth of Sauron or something?

Annatar Sauron

What did they have it for the movie? Jamhaw 15:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

A scene was planned for ROTK in which Sauron comes out of the Balck Gate and fights Aragorn. He first appears as Annatar, but then changes to the evil shape which you also see in the prologue of FOTR. Galadh 16:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the article is incorrect in its description in regards to the abandoned Annatar/Sauron fight sequence. The article currently states that:

"[s]cenes of the fight were shot, but later this idea was discarded and was replaced by a scene where Aragorn fights the Mouth of Sauron, a representative of Sauron."

However, according to the Extended Edition DVD The Appendices Part 5: The War of the Ring "From Book to Script: Forming the Final Chapter" the Aragorn/Sauron battle was replaced with Aragorn battling a Troll (as seen in the final release of the film) not the Mouth of Sauron, whose sequence had already finished by this point in the film.Zeldaricdeau 08:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and make this change.Zeldaricdeau 01:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I would think that any Annatar scene would have been a scene showing the ring's forging. That was the form Sauron had assumed when he made the ring.169.253.4.21 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)TexxasFinn

That would have made sense, but Jackson was going to have Aragorn fight Sauron at the Black Gate (Sauron first appearing as Annatar). Too many changes in the movies to begin with, that would have broke the camels back! --Gothaur (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My Family Guy Reference

I tried to reference Family Guy, from the episode mentioned above, in the article but someone removed it. Some people are not fun, I guess.

try and make a section like "Sauron in pop culture" and add it there. If the hardcore Tolkien fans think its not suitable for the page, too bad. This is an encyclopedia, not a character guide.

That's correct. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of idiotic trivia. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

good point, i stand down

Why the article on Palpatine is little more than a collection of idiotic trivia nowadays. I actually think we should have a section on "Sauron in popular culture" as he has made something of an impact on popular culture, being as he is, Middle-Earth's ultimate antagonist.

Doesn't Sauron's body die before Isildur cuts off his Ring in the book?

If I'm not mistaken, Elendil and Gil-galad killed him and were killed themselves. Then Isildur cuts off the Ring. Either way, his spirit flees. Uthanc 03:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

But I seem to recall Isildur citing the fact that he killed Sauron as reason for him to keep the One Ring. Although admittedly that could have been the Ring itself talking at the time. Is it possible that Elendil and Gil-Galad mortally wounded Sauron, and that Isildur's cutting off the source of Sauron's power being to much for him to heal? -- SFH 04:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Right, it is stated somewhat differently in various passages. In some Elendil and Gil-galad are said to have killed Sauron. In another Isildur claims to have dealt the death blow. Assuming both are 'correct' and following the most detailed accounts it might be reasoned that Elendil and Gil-galad killed Sauron's body, but his spirit did not flee until Isildur cut the Ring from his hand. --CBD 23:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
That would make sense given that Sauron passed much of himself into the Ring: even with his body dead he lived as long as the Ring was in his possession. As formidable an opponent as he was during the War of the Ring, without the One Ring in possession he was but a shadow of himself. -- Jordi·✆ 07:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember any reference to a "death" even for an immortal Maiar. The term used is actually that he "fled" so it suggests that if not exactly voluntarily his retreat was calculated. I can only speculate on what his reasoning was behind it, certainly without the Ring Sauron was vastly diminished and could not have stood against the Last Aliance. It may be that Sauron reluctantly surrendered the Ring and fled reasoning that if they couldn't destroy it, he could regroup and press the attack later. Though Elrond and Cirdan did in fact know that throwing it into Orodruin would destroy it, they had refused Sauron's instruction in magic and it is nowhere explained HOW they could have known that. Sauron might very reasonable have assumed that either they would not destroy the ring (as was true) or that they would not figure out how (which was not true). --24.60.168.187 18:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sauron did hav a body and it has a long story... Until near the end of the second age of the sun. At that time, a large fleet of numenoreans (the ancestors of the dunedain) invaded middle earth and challenged sauron and his armies. Outmatched, sauron surrenders to the numenoreans and was taken tot he island of numenor but sauron hid the ring in mordor. Unable to beat the numenoreans by military force, he tricks them to attacking the Undying lands (where the valars, maiars, and eldar elves lived). In retaliation, Eru (the creator of all living creatures of arda, including sauron), destroys the island of numenor, and separates the undying land from the rest of the world.

Sauron's body was destroyed with the destruction of the numenor island but his spirit (being immortal) fled back to mordor and takes back his ring. He was able to make a new body for himself with the power of his ring (but he can no longer appear fair).

As we know from the movie, isildur cuts the one ring from sauron's finger and again sauron's body was destroyed (but not his spirit). BEcause isildur did not destroy the one ring, sauron was able to return 1000 years later, and again he devastated middle earth.

when sauron's ring fell to the lava of mount doom and was destroyed, so too did sauron's power. It should be noted that many of sauron's kingdom and servants are tied to sauron via sauron's ring and therefore their survival depends on the ring's integrity. WIth the destruction of sauron's ring, sauron's power, kingdom, servants, and his chance of ever returning to power was permanently lost.

However, remember that sauron is an ainur (a maia). His spirit is still intact (therefor it still exist) but without the one ring it is formless and powerless.

"... It was Gil-Galad, Elven-king and Elendil of Westernesse who overthrew Sauron, though they themselves perished in the deed; and Isildur Elendil's son cut the Ring from Sauron's hand and took it for his own. Then Sauron was vanquished and his spirit fled and was hidden for long years, until his shadow took shape again in Mirkwood...." "Overthrew Sauron", to my mind implies they mortally wounded him, or at the very least was knocked to the ground. Sauron was vanquished AFTER Isildur cut the Ring away thereby separating the body from the source of most of its power, the trauma of this sundering caused his death. His spirit fled to take shape again later. It has to be noted that Sauron did take shape again, this implies a certain link to the Ring even though it was no longer in his possession. If there was not, why would destroying the Ring have any effect on him? Basically we can view the Ring as Sauron's anchor to this world. Even when it wasnt in his possession he could at least count on this one aspect. That is unless one with power, took up the Ring, claimed it as their own, dominated it and cut him adrift (with the same result for him as having the Ring destroyed). The Ring being destroyed the Spirit of Sauron lost most of its original power. He was crippled. So much so that Gandalf figures he would never rise again.--Gorthaur 15:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

" ...He was overcome and physically killed by Gil-galad and Elendil..."
What is the definition for killing someone that cannot be killed?
"But Isildur refused this counsel, saying: "This I will have as a weregild for my father's death, and my brother's. Was it not I that dealt the Enemy his death-blow? " "
Letter 131
"Gilgalad and Elendil are slain in the act of slaying Sauron . Isildur, Elendil's son, cuts the ring from Sauron's hand, and his power departs, and his spirit flees into the shadows. "
So both Gil-Galad & Elendil as well as Isildur are assigned the kudoes for "killing" Sauron. Dead of a body, to my mind, is when the spirit leaves the body. This only occurs AFTER Isildur cuts the ring off Sauron's hand.
How then do we square the circle?... The text does give the impression that Gil-Galad and Elendil incapacitated and mortally wounded Sauron. Isildur, in cutting the Ring off Sauron's hand, supplied the coup-de-grace, sundering Sauron's spirit from his body.
how about revising the text to "He was overthrown (mortally wounded) by Gil-galad and Elendil, who themselves were slain in the act, Elendil's sword Narsil broke beneath him when he fell. Elendil's surviving son, Isildur, supplied the coup-de-grâce, cutting the One Ring from Sauron's hand with the hilt-shard of Narsil. With the loss of his Ring, Sauron was defeated, his spirit fled his body and went into hiding.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gothaur (talk • contribs) 11:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Have edited this section to reflect this... --Gorthaur 08:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As a Maia Sauron's physical body could be destroyed and "die", his spirit however is imortal, he would just have to gather enough strength to get create new body. This is what happend to Gandalf when he died fighting the Balrog, although in his case Eru gave him a new body rather quicker. Also with regards to Sauron's link to the ring, he had poured most of his native strength into the ring and thus weakend himself in a similar way to Melkor. Carl Sixsmith 17:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Its not that I dont agree with Sauron's body being destroyed, it is the use of the word "Die". I'm being picky and it doesnt really matter. Death to my thinking is one way traffic, a complete and permanent severance with the land of the living. Sauron never lost that link, he just needed a bit of time to become visible/physically present again. For such a being, not dependant on a body for life, can he or his body actually die??? His body becomes an object in a very true sense, an object that can be destroyed, but killed??? Im not so sure about that...
After the Ring was destroyed, It could still be argued that link stil existed, it is just that he lost the power to become physically manifested in the world.
As for Gandalf, I cant remember reading where he was actually given a new body (I could possibly - and probably am wrong). My recollection my be coloured by the movies, but I cant say whether Gandalf spirit entered/formed a new body or inhabited a healed old body...
Gothaur 11:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Gandalf was in his old body. Tolkien never said he got a new one. I believe he even had to heal up for a while in Lothlorien. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on how you relate the "Body" and "Soul", there are a few occurences of peoples body's being destroyed (dying?), Glordindel and Gandalf being two examples (both slain in battle with a Balrog). I'm quoting from Unfinished Tales here so not sure how it is classed in Tolkien Canon

_{Yet it is said that in the ending of the task for which he came he suffered greatly and was slain, and being sent back from death for a brief while was clothed in white, and became a radiant flame (yet veiled still save in great need).} Carl Sixsmith 14:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have stated in this section that when Elendil and Gil-Galad "Overthrew" Sauron, it means they "mortally wounded" him. This is the only way (to my mind) Elendil & Gil-Galad as well as Isildur can slay Sauron. All were given the kudoes by Tolkien for doing so, however as previously stated it was only when separated from the Ring did Sauron's spirit leave his body. Hence the mortally wounded, followed by a coup de grace.--Gothaur 08:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And I reverted your edit. Tolkien said "overthrow". To go beyond that is speculation. If you have some notable reliable sources that gloss "overthrow" as "mortally wound" then cite them. Otherwise it's your own idea. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote previously above, stating two sources for Sauron's demise...
Silmarillion - "But Isildur refused this counsel, saying: "This I will have as a weregild for my father's death, and my brother's. Was it not I that dealt the Enemy his death-blow? "
Letter 131 - "Gilgalad and Elendil are slain in the act of slaying Sauron . Isildur, Elendil's son, cuts the ring from Sauron's hand, and his power departs, and his spirit flees into the shadows. " So both Gil-Galad & Elendil as well as Isildur are assigned the kudoes for "killing" Sauron. Dead of a body, to my mind, is when the spirit leaves the body. This only occurs AFTER Isildur cuts the ring off Sauron's hand. How then do we square the circle?... The text does give the impression that Gil-Galad and Elendil incapacitated and mortally wounded Sauron. Isildur, in cutting the Ring off Sauron's hand, supplied the coup-de-grace, sundering Sauron's spirit from his body.
Tolkien says Elendil/Gil-galad AND Isildur kill Sauron. The word overthrow is vague at best. There is no other way to read what Tolkien wrote than to say Elendil/Gil-Galad mortally wounded Sauron and Isildur finished him off. Come up with any other possibility that satisfies all three getting the recognition for killing Sauron (while still suporting the term overthrow) and I will gladly remove it.--Gothaur 08:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Tolkien doesn't say that. In the first cite Elrond is quoting Isildur, and we have no reason to believe that Isildur is a reliable narrator as he is plainly not behaving rationally. In the second, only E/G are credited with "slaying" Sauron; the effect of removing the Ring is described differently. (In this case, since it's the author speaking in his own voice, he's absolutely reliable.) You may think of that as "killing", but Tolkien took care to distinguish the events, and we shouldn't paraphrase him in such a way as to blur that over. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well.... no. Because both E/G and Isildur ARE attributed the kudoes for slaying Sauron. However it is not until Isildur cuts off the Ring is Sauron vanquished, and even more importantly, his Spirit forsakes his body. This is always regarded as point of death (especially to a RC which Tolkien was). "Then Sauron was for that time vanquished, and he forsook his body, and his spirit fled far away" As for not being able to take what Isildur said as what happened, Why is this? He may have been under the influence of the Ring yet it does not mean what he says was false, indeed everything points to it being the truth. Elrond was there, he saw how the final duel was fought. There is never any arguement from Elrond as to the manner in which Isildur took the ring, only a question mark as to why he wants to keep it.
However, I do think we will go round and round in circles with this. Ill reword the text which will hopefully satisfy all...--Gothaur 12:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not with that cite it doesn't. The Letters reference specifically credits E/G with "slaying" Sauron. If you want to call it something else, you'll have to cite something else. Otherwise, OR.

It's also an error to attribute a Catholic anthropology to the world of LotR. Tolkien built in a Catholic morality and view of sin, and in some ways conformed it to a Catholic worldview, but not in every way. He was also rather vague on the relationship between a Maia and his body. In Sil he says that the Valar (and presumably the Maiar) took on bodies as Elves and Men might put on clothes, but the incarnation of the Istari seems to have been on a different order, as is the relationship of spirits more closely bound to them such as Melkor or Sauron after the fall of Numenor when he became unable to assume a fair shape. It's not at all clear what "death" means in this context, or what exactly he meant by "slaying". More than one explanation can be rationalized. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And I think you badly misread Elrond here. He regarded Isildur's act as foolishness, and was not quoting him there to show his perspicacity; quite the opposite. Elrond never said anything but that Isildur cut the Ring from Sauron's hand; but he disagreed strongly with his reasons for keeping it. Isildur was doing exactly the same thing as Bilbo with his story about winning the Ring in the riddle-game, and Gollum with his "birthday present" story: trying to establish his right to the Ring beyond any doubt, and as in the other examples, most likely at the expense of the truth. Only Frodo was ever honest about how he came by the Ring, and was never foolish enough to claim it for his own until he was completely overcome at Mt. Doom. Everyone else who had it did everything they could to establish title to it, whether or not they were giving out a true story. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not totally convinced, either way truth be told. However it is not so clear cut as you would put forward. IF Sauron was slain by E/G, why did his spirit not grab the ring and retreat to the waste places with it a la Fall of Numenor? OR did Isildur rush in like mad and quickly cut off the ring before this happened?? Now thats stretching things! (inventing actions to support an idea)
Anyways, like I said before, we could argue about this round and around in circles. Which is why I chose wording straight from the text. For some reason it was changed... The text says E/G overthrew Sauron , and that Isildur vanquished him, causing his spirit to flee.
This cannot be denied. --Gothaur 12:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I have re-edited this again. Hopefully to the satisfaction of all. Some credit has to come to Isildur, anything less and he is reduced to the level of a corpse robber.
The text does clearly state, it was only AFTER he cut off the Ring that Sauron was vanquished. So by definition, E/G did not defeat Sauron. Whether you can be slain and still not be defeated... I dont know. However as the text does say it was after the Ring cutting he was vanquished, it does give more credit to what Isildur did and said. Isildur, NOT E/G defeated Sauron, and so when he said he delivered the "death blow", perhaps it had more to do with dealing the death blow to Sauron's plans of victory, that a death blow to his body.--Gothaur 13:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Sauron's spirit, bereft of bodily form, could do much of anything in the physical world in the immediate aftermath of his body's destruction. Remember that Luthien threatened to kill him in the First Age when she rescued Beren, and said that she'd send his "quaking ghost" back to Morgoth, shrieking. This episode, and the events during the Last Battle, strongly imply that if a powerful spirit like Sauron chooses to become manifest in the physical world, there is a tremendous shock if that physical manifestation is destroyed-- dies, as it were. When Sauron's material/physical form died after the G/E/Isildir assault, his "quaking ghost," to quote Luthien, fled in psychic pain and confusion. On the other hand, when he dies in the Downfall of Numenor, he seems to recover somewhat more easily. Maybe that's because his death was 'voluntary.' He planned to induce the Numenoreans to attack the Blessed Realm all along, anticipating Numenor's destruction as a result. Perhaps he anticipated that his own form might be destroyed in the Downfall too. The psychic shock was less. Also, the Wave was only an assault on his physical form. Gil-galad and Elendil surely attacked Sauron in the "spiritual" sense as much as they attacked his body with spear and sword. In Numenor, he simply "drowned." And he didn't lose the ring. Sauron must have left the ring hidden in Middle-earth or else he would have lost in when Numenor was destroyed, if indeed he couldn't escape the Wave.169.253.4.21 (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)TexxasFinn

Tolkien himself states that you neednt boggle at the idea that the spirit of Sauron "airlifted" the Ring out of the wrack of Numenor. But you do have a point, the severing of the Ring from his finger must have been enough to stop him pressing his suit there and then to the Ring at the foot of Mt doom. However, Isildur definately didnt hang around after Sauron was slain in cutting off the ring. Being overthrown by E/G is no more disruptive than "death by Numenor". Sauron also did not expect Numenor to be destroyed by Eru. Hence his own destruction was not voluntary. E/G slew Sauron. Isildur defeated him. (Sauron wasnt defeated by E/G) earlier versions of the page reflected this with relevant cites. It would be nice if the page reflected this again --Gothaur (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you maintain Sauron's overthrow at the Last Battle was no more disruptive than his death in Numenor. He was able to save the Ring after the Downfall of Numenor. His only "foe" was water, destroying his physical body, but leaving his spirit intact enough to save the Ring, return to Middle-Earth, and rematerialize in short order. When Elendil and Gil-galad threw him down, he was shocked enough that his spirit was powerless to stop Isildur from cutting the Ring from his hand and "defeating" him. I agree that Isildur's power was clearly great to pull this off; but to me at least, it seems clear from Tolkien's description that the assault by G and E was devastating to Sauron, and the implication is that it was an assault not just on his physical form, but on his spiritual form as well-- enough to weaken him so that the unthinkable happened, and he lost the Ring. TexxasFinn (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)TexxasFinn

More expansion

See Talk:One Ring. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The Jackson eye is a bit wrong (other than physical form).

In the book, it's only rimmed with fire, and it's yellow with a black iris, just like a normal cat's eye. The film has flame everywhere. We need an illustration. Uthanc 13:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

my family guy reference answer

whoever said that sauron is middle-earth's ultimate antagonist, HE'S NOT!. morgoth is.

Morgoth's spelt with a capital M. Duh! Anyway, Sauron and Morgoth share the role of ultimate antagonist. Besides, that's a matter of opinion. The fact is that Sauron is the most iconic Middle-Earth villain so my point is that we should have a section of Sauron in popular culture. Oh and by the way, Sauron IS in my opinion Middle-Earth's ultimate antagonist because he was around causing trouble at the same time as Morgoth and stayed around, causing mayhem long after Morgoth was captured by the Valar, and when he created the One Ring he became as strong as Morgoth as the article says [or at least used to say] with the power of the Ring, combined with the powers Morgoth had shared with him and his own already awesome power.

Sauron became as powerful as Morgoth was in his localized personality after he had dispersed most of his substance into Arda and his various "creations", but was never more powerful than Morgoth's total being. With that taken into account, Morgoth was even more powerful than Manwë. (There's no indication at all that Morgoth ever "shared" power with Sauron or any of the other Maiar in his service.) Most of what Sauron was capable of, particularly with the Rings, was only possible because of this prior corruption of Arda's material substance. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

True. But what about that other stuff like him being around at the same time as Morgoth and afterwards? And do you think we should have a section on Sauron in popular culture as well? If you do that would be something we could agree on.

What about it? The article talks about that. And I despise "popular culture" sections. They almost never add anything of interest. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just saying how the fact that Sauron was around longer than Morgoth and therefore caused more damage than him could class him as Middle-Earth's ultimate antagonist. And a popular culture section could be useful.

Actually, Morgoth and Sauron are the both the original Dark Lords; they have existed equally as long, and created the powers that their allies and sucessors use, and the existence of hatred and evil. therefore, they both share the title of ultimate antagonist.

Ultimate antagonist - Has to be Morgoth. There is no way Sauron approached the might of Morgoth even with the Ring. Morgoth was the greatest in power of all the Valar. How could a Maia, albeit a very powerful one, come close?!? He cant. Morgoth is also the longest lasting Dark Lord. He was the first, the rest joined him. Morgoth may now be considered to be imprisoned in the void but his shadow still remains on the world. Sauron did have a good stint as Dark Lord but after the 3rd age, he is considered to have been nothing more than a spiteful spirit that may eventually consume itself out of existence. Morgoth is just waiting for the next round... --Gorthaur 14:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If all that matters is longevity, than the Balrog in Moria has one up on Morgoth, as do at least some orcs, Shelob ('last child of Ungoliant'), etc. Tolkien emphasizes that Sauron was "but a servant" of Morgoth in LOTR at least a couple of times ('Shadow of the Past', etc.) Morgoth, even in his 'dotage,' contended with all the Valar at once. Sauron couldn't come close to that, even if he was perhaps wiser and more 'sane' in most respects than Morgoth. Tolkien's commentary on Morgoth was: as time went by, dude was INSANE!169.253.4.21 (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)TexxasFinn

Oh yes, completely bonkers. Personally I wouldn't say longevity was all that matters, I just think that what this person meant was that Sauron, in addition to being as evil as Morgoth outlived him. The Balrog in Moria wouldn't stand a chance against Sauron or Morgoth, nor would Shelob and the Orcs aren't even worth considering. I myself think Sauron was the superior Dark Lord. He was not only one of the most powerful of the Maiar but the Ring increased his power tenfold meaning that he surpassed most Valar in power. Tolkien actually says that with the Ring Sauron's power surpasses that of Morgoth albeit not at the peak of his power. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What is this? Some kind of Olympic competition for Ultimate Antagonist? (Gold: Sauron (Mordor) at 9.34; Silver: Morgoth (Angband) at 8.57 -- points off for not sticking the landing; Bronze: Balrog (Moria) at 6.23 -- floor show took too long to get off the ground ...) Is that what it boils down to? Is that what you take away from it? Seriously, even a casual reader will pick up on the depth of Morgoth's evil; and by suffusing himself into the very fiber of Ea, Morgoth is responsible for far more evil and suffering than Sauron ever was. Sauron's evil derives from Morgoth's, as Tolkien was at pains to point out. Elphion (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Morgoth was a serial inept, Sauron was superior by far. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with Elphion. Morgoth's influence in the world did not stop with his defeat at the end of the First Age. His essence has permeated everywhere. He is also waiting for Dagor Bragolagh (sp?). As for being insane. It can be argued all Evil is insane, the more evil, the more insane. What does that prove? Nothing much. I think the question needs defining. Greater, superior.... how where what when??? Greater war maker? Superior craftsman? Greatest evil? Most successful in wars? Greatest impact on the world? The last question, the answer can only be Morgoth. He was the original, all evil stemmed from him and still is. As for the other questions.... --Gothaur (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

comparison with the evil queen disney

i see comparisions of him with the Evil Queen of Disney. here are some similarities: both are the second evil, both lost the ability to have a fair and pleasing form after an accident, they have a lot of servants. put more similarities here please.

The Evil Queen does not lose the ability to take a fair and pleasing form. She just has the ability to take an unpleasant one. Good points though. no, i mean by putting they lost the ability to take a fair and pleasing form is because, if you look in the article, there's something about in the italian comics that a writer wrote something that said she survived her fall, and as a result, she can't change back into her fair form.

Next! 66.63.86.156 16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Gil-galad, the High King in Lindon?

Shouldn't Gil-galad be called the High King of the Noldor or the High King of the Noldor of Middle-earth, not the High King of Lindon? Aule the Smith 02:26 UTC, December 3 2006 (UTC)

I am going to change this, if anyone disagrees, you can chang it back, although I think High King of the Noldor is more correct. Aule the Smith 22:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually both are correct. It didn't say "of Lindon", it said "in Lindon", which is true. The most informative way to put it would be "High King of the Noldor, who ruled from Lindon." (The distance between Lindon and Eregion is a salient point, I think.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I beg to defer it took me so long to find this out. "high king of lindon" title for Gil-Galad is more correct that "high king of the noldor".

Why? It is because there is another person who is the true "high king of the noldor" and that is Finarfin (the grand uncle of Gil-Galad). Finarfin ruled the noldor elves in eldamar and the undying lands (a contient far from the events where the lord of the ring events took place. did not show up in the Lord of the ring continuity but he did so in the earlier works of JRR Tolkien. Gil Galad ruled the noldors in middle earth (the continent where mortal men are) but he did not rule in the world. In this case, Finarfin is older and of higher seniority than Gil-Galad —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carlo alvares (talk • contribs) 09:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Finarfin was the youngest brother to Feanor and Fingolfin. The kingship by rights belonged to the eldest - Feanor. Maedhros passed this right to the House of Fingolfin (thereby becoming The Dispossessed). Before the end of the 2nd Age, Finarfin may be considered a King of the Noldor in Aman but can't be considered High-King of the Nolder (at least not until Gil-Galad gets fried). This title belongs to Ereinion Gil-galad alone. --Gorthaur 15:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of the name

Sauron is a Quenya name, and it should be pronounced as such, not as in English. I had changed the given pronunciation to the correct one, but the change has apparently been reverted. The correct pronunciation is described precisely enough in the Appendix E of The Lord of the Rings: u and o should always have quality as in brute and for, respectively, and r is always thrilled. So, could someone change /'sɑʊɻɒn/ to /'sɑu.rɔn/? (and ensure that it be not reverted again ;)) 83.131.224.11 17:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Saw-ron would be the closest pronunciation --24.60.168.187 18:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. "Saw-ron", as pronounced in english doesn't contain the same u sound as in brute. The a and u are both pronounced, or at least form an ow. So, per english pronunciation, Sauron would be Sah-oo-rohn, or at least Sow-ron. 129.170.50.83 03:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Worth mentioning that not only is "saw-ron" wrong, the book has a note at the end asking the reader not to pronounce it that way! Leushenko (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Physical Form

The line that Sauron could not take physical form never appears in the book (althought Sauruman says so in the movie). The book actually says exactly the opposite on numerous occasions. That Sauron does have a physical body and can move from place to place.

Aragorn not only seems to believe that Sauron has a physical form but that it would be possible to do damage to tha form (as his ancestor indeed did) "Let the Lord of the Black Land come forth! Let justice be done upon him!........Th Lords of Gondor demand that he atone for his evils and depart then forever."

Denethor who has wrestled with Sauron mentally says that Sauron "will not come save to triumph over me when all else is conquered." So Denethor believes that he can move himself from place to place, as do his soliders of Gondor.

Tolkien (in the form of narrator) referrs to how Sauron would have needed to come to Lothlorien in what might be considered the epilogue "The power of that land was too great for any to overcome unless Sauron should come there himself."

Most clearly is that Gollum has actually seen the Dark Lord with his own eyes and confesses this much to Frodo. He referrs to him as having "Only 4 fingers on the black hand." He may be speaking poetically but that seems a little beyond Gollum.

Long story short the idea seems to be Sauron does not have a physical form (or any real power for that matter) once the ring is destroyed. But various statements in the Tale of Year refer to Sauron taking shape again. This could hardly take him 1500+ years (the time which was between his taking shape and the war of the rings) since his body was destroyed in the Fall of Numemenor but we know explicitly it has been repaired by the Last Alliance a few short decades later.

Also it is quite possible Sauron did not have the ring with him at Numenor yet we know he has a physical body there. We aren't explicitly told this one way or the other but he only arouse after the fall as a "Spirit" so its unclear if he could have rescued the ring from the ruins of Numenor. --24.60.168.187 18:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It might just as well be the fact that, when Sauron drowned with Numenor, he was able to reform quickly because he knew where his ring was and returned to it (or if he had it on the island, he travelled back with it somehow). He was thus able to reform relatively quickly, whereas after the Ring was taken from him, he lost contact with it and had to reform without it, only supported partially by its underlying presence. After that, when it was destroyed, he lost even that and did not manage a re-emergence (that we are aware of). Rotten Venetic 10:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sauron, the Ring and Númenor

About Sauron and the Ring in Númenor :

Sauron was first defeated by a 'miracle': a direct action of God the Creator, changing the fashion of the world, when appealed to by Manwë: see III p. 317. 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, upon which his power of dominating minds now largely depended. Letter 211

aravanessë —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.84.142.16 (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Earlier in Letter 211 (p. 279), Tolkien says explicitly that Sauron had the Ring in Númenor, and that this is why Númenor so quickly fell under his influence. Elphion (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Return?

I don't remember in the Silmarillion it claiming that Sauron would or could ever return. I recall Morgoth will certainly return but can anyone actually say canonically Sauron will? Even Gandalf said his fall was so low "none here can forseen his rising ever again." --Darkling235 01:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

He might return for Dagor Dagorath, but that too is only a prophecy and in-universe might never take place. So his chance of a comeback is a possible variant of a possible variant, making it rather slim. Rotten Venetic 10:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Shock wave?

The article says: "Separation from the Ring destroys Sauron's body, which explodes and causes a shockwave, knocking everyone on the battlefield over." To me it looked like the orcs's bodies disapeared and their armor fell to the ground. There was a blast of wind but not that strong. It just ruffled one of the elves' hair. If there was a literal shockwave Isildur, who was at ground-zero, would have certainly been killed. Steve Dufour 13:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Seconded about Isildur dying, but did the Orcs really disappear? If you are referring to the shockwave in the movie, it does look like if it had the power to only push Isildur several inches back and in the air, it would not fell any orc about 250 yards away, but neither does it look like they disappear. The only explanation I have is that Sauron's shockwave might not have been a regular, physical phenomenon, and thus not subject to ordinary friction. Sauron was not entirely subject to the laws of physics as we know them. Rotten Venetic 10:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Can movie devices be accepted as LOTR orthodoxy? Anyways, to interpret the movie shockwave, I think of it as "spiritual ?light? pulse" for want of a better description. Sauron's spirit is dissipated (for a time). The Orcs and Trolls still exist, they just want to be somewhere else. They would have been better to show a great shadowy cloud much like.... "…as the Captains gazed south to the Land of Mordor, it seemed to them that, black against the pall of cloud, there rose a huge shape of shadow, impenetrable, lightning-crowned, filling all the sky. Enormous it reared above the world, and stretched out towards them a vast threatening hand, terrible but impotent: for even as it leaned over them, a great wind took it, and it was all blown away, and passed; and then a hush fell..." ...although at this time it is far from impotent, and does not get blown away by a great wind, but rather retreats into the East.--Gorthaur 15:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There are any number of things they would have done much better to show in the movie. But no, if by "LOTR orthodoxy" you mean Tolkien's creation. The movie is Jackson's creature and is an accurate reflection of his vision only.

Sauron's spirit at the time he lost the Ring was indeed very close to impotent, but not at all dissipated apart from what he put into the Ring. The difference is that he wasn't permanently in that condition, but only needed to rest up for a millennium or so before becoming active again. I can't recall any sources that say definitively that he fled east. As a purely spiritual being it pretty much doesn't matter where he went. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ill have to check to see if Sauron did flee eastwards after he lost the ring. So far it does appear all that is stated, is that he fled to desolate places, to eventually make himself known as the Necromancer in Mirkwood years later. As for the shockwave -I believe all movie interpretations etc should be kept separate and not mixed with the true Tolkien vision. Drop the shockwave basically. --Gorthaur 13:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

More context wanted

I came to this page looking for something that wasn't there, a bit of textual analysis. What are the historical or mythological precedents that Tolkien was relying on (as he did for almost everything else) when he developed Sauron? Morgoth is obviously based on Satan, but whence comes the idea that evil comes from Satan's understudy and not Satan himself? Not from Christian mysticism nor Greek philosophy. David s graff 17:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be nice, but I don't think that much has been written on the specific sources for Sauron. He took the place of "the Necromancer" in The Hobbit, who was mentioned in the story mainly as an excuse to remove Gandalf from the company for a while. The identification with the lieutenant of Morgoth came only with the writing of LotR, and by then the character was pretty much set. He originated in the tale of Beren and Luthien, as described in the article. I can't recall whether or not there is any evidence that the phonological resemblance between Tevildo and "Devil" was intentional, but Thû>Sauron more occupies the same place in the story than is a development of the same character. The clash between Tevildo and Huan in the original was supposed to be a mythological explanation for the antipathy between cats and dogs. This mythological element is entirely absent later on while the outlines of the incident remain: Sauron takes the shape of a great werewolf and in that form is defeated by Huan.

There is actually much precedent in Christianity for the idea of lesser evils serving the prime evil, but again I can't recall if that comparison has ever been drawn in the literature. Sauron didn't represent a "source" of evil anyway so much as an embodiment of it. The ultimate source was still Morgoth, even in later ages. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this idea is shared by others, but from the Silmarillion I had gotten the impression that Melkor and Sauron are basically the equivalents of Satan and Lucifer from Christianity. Myrddin y dewydd 03:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That was a mistaken impression. In Christianity, Lucifer and Satan are two different names for the same being. Tolkien was explicit in some of his letters that Melkor was the diabolus of his legendarium, which I believe is covered in the appropriate article. He never said anything like that about Sauron. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If I may say so, Sauron reminded me a lot of Hitler.

Csernica: My theology is rusty atm, but according to sources more credible than the dictionaire infernal, is Mephistopheles also a name for the same being? If not, we can relate Sauron to this one, or whoever is Luke's second in command down there. After all, with Gothmog the balrog destroyed, or incapacitated, for the whole second and third ages, Sauron was Melkor's right hand... Maia. Rotten Venetic 10:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That's more a matter for students of literature than theologians, or even demonologists. As far as I know, the name Mephistopheles was invented from whole cloth for the fictional demon in the Faust story. It cannot predate the 17th century. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Samael is seen as the first evil. The prime archangel that all the other fallen angels followed. As there are hierarchies in the orders of angels - Powers, Dominions, Angels, Archangels, serphim etc etc, so the same can be said of the Powers in Arda. The Valar can be seen as the Archangels of Arda, the Maiar as the lower orders of Angel etc. Samael was an Archangel (Seraphim?) -> Melkor was a Vala Azazel + others were of a lower order of fallen Angels -> Sauron, Gothmog + other Balrogs Michael, Uriel, Gabriel etc - The Western Valar Angels -> Gandalf, Eonwe... --Gorthaur 15:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You can assign any correspondences you want, but if this is just what seems reasonable to you then it's OR. We'd have to have some published critical work that drew this comparison to include it in the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Eyeofsauron.jpg

Image:Eyeofsauron.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sauron.jpg

Image:Sauron.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Power Rankings

"Only Gothmog, the Lord of Balrogs, equalled him."

The only Maiar to (grudgingly) equal or surpass Sauron in power was Eönwë. On the evil side you had Morgoth, followed by Sauron then by Gothmog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gothaur (talk • contribs) 13:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed "Only Gothmog, the Lord of Balrogs, equalled him." This is untrue. While the rankings of power are unclear amoungst all Maiar, certain things are clear. Sauron was Morgoths second in command, superior to Gothmog. Morgoth only "respected" power, hence he made his most powerful servant second in command. We know all seven Maiar Istari are less powerful than Sauron. The only maiar we know that was more powerful than Sauron was Eönwë. Of course it all depends on what your definition of power is. Defensive, Offensive, Wisdom....?? --Gorthaur 10:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Annatar

I've been noticing that you keep changing the meaning of name Annatar to "Lord of Gifts", that is incorrect according to the author David Day Annatar means "The Giver of Gifts", as I once altered in the Sauron page. You can read it in his book "A guide to Tolkien" in the part where the author describers the Sauron character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odnan (talk • contribs) 22:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

David Day is wrong. See "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age", the last section in The Silmariallion. The name is Quenya: anna means "gift"; -atar as "lord" is otherwise unattested as far as I know; it may be related to tar, "king" or atar, "father". "Giver" is (probably) anto, which looks as if it might be crammed in there, but it would be difficult to account for the loss of the "n" under the usual Quenya phonological rules as "nt" between vowels is a favored consonant cluster. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Odnan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odnan (talk • contribs) 11:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

physical damage maintained during shape change

I'd like to point out that the questions posed near the end of the "Appearance" section in regards to Sauron's last physical shape maintaining the severed finger seem to be answered upon examination of Sauron's battle with Huan and Luthien. There it is told that Sauron, who had been caught in Huan's jaws, continued to drip blood from his neck after he was released and transformed into a vampire. Since this implies that damage to his body (or at least a certain kind of damage) is maintained once he transforms, the idea of Sauron maintaining the severed finger after rebuilding his body without the use of much of his native power (seeing as he did not have access to the Ring) seems to make a fair deal of sense. Zeldaricdeau 00:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've made some changes noting this.Zeldaricdeau 02:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Multiple fair guises

Does Tolkien ever explicitly state that the "fair form" that Sauron took during his time as Annatar is the same fair form taken during his stay in Numenor or his confrontation with Eonwe? The article implies that this is a known fact, but my recollection (though fading so many years out from reading tHoME) does not include any definitive ye or nay on this subject. I suppose I ask because I would have expected Sauron to take on an Elvish shape when dealing with the Elves of Eregion and a vaguely more Man-like form when dealing with the Numenorians. Zeldaricdeau 00:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well not entirely, although as far as I remember he doesnt say what colour hair, eyes* he has in these manifestations, however in "The Lost Road" Tolkien states - "...Upon that ship which was cast highest and stood dry upon a hill there was a man, or one in man's shape, but greater than any even of the race of Númenor in stature."

not their colour, but piercing eyes none the less - "...And it seemed to men that Sauron was great; though they feared the light of his eyes"

So we know he looked human, was pretty big and had piercing eyes... at least for his stint in Numenor --Gothaur (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I know this goes against the whole stroyline, but...

How come Eru doesn't just take all the Ainur, walk (or however they move) into Mordor and kill Sauron right there and then (by arms or by destroying The Ring)? Well I know why he doesn't do it. Tolkien obviously wouldn't of thought this a suitable solution for the legendarium, but what reason does Tolkien give for Eru not aiding/intervening in deafting Sauron (other then sending the Maiar)? --Ted87 (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons, in the begining the battle between Morgoth and the rest of the Valar when the two lamps where thrown down there was much destruction and large areas of land where destroyed, also there was a sundering of the Elves and the Valar when the some of the Elves believed the lies of Morgoth that the Valar where jelous of them and wanted to keep them under their dominion. This is why the Istari when they where sent where forbidden from using might and fear to control people. Plus Eru rarely gets involved with the "universe" and stays out for the most time anyway. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Sauron

Hi everybody. I have inserted a picture of Sauron [2] a couple of times (made by myself) but some people don´t seem to like it. This is what I wrote to them:

Hi "X". I noticed that you have erased the picture of "Sauron - Gorthaur" that I inserted. You just don't do that without any reason ! If you know anything about pictures of Sauron you probably know this one from the site: From the One Wiki to Rule Them All, the Lord of the Rings Encyclopedia. Look at the second picture "Sauron in the First Age". My picture is inspired by this one. So there's no need to remove "Sauron - Gorthaur".

They haven´t given me any reason for deleting the picture. As I don´t want an "edit war" to go on I ask you to prevent this to happen again. I don´t see there should be something wrong with the picture since Sauron´s appearance differs from time to time during the history of the Middle-earth. I hope you will support me. Thank you. Regards, Gorthaur03 (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Eye of Sauron: physical or not?

I see there's been a rewrite to the effect that "the Eye of Sauron is purely metaphorical and Jackson got it wrong". This is in no way clear (in fact, if Jackson had just let the Eye peer out from a window in Barad-dûr instead of having it float above the tower, nobody could have insisted that he had misinterpreted anything).

Yes, it's clear that Tolkien meant Sauron to have some kind of body, which Gollum has seen. But this fact doesn't utterly preclude any physical reality to the Eye itself. For one thing, the Eye could somehow be part of that body. It is also possible that Sauron's attention, working outwards, somehow produced the Eye as a secondary manifestation (just like there are ample hints that the dark mists surrounding Barad-dûr are to some extent projections of Sauron's mind).

There is a reference in the novel to "the window of the Eye" in Barad-dûr; it seems very weird that a purely metaphorical "Eye" should need a physical look-out post. Frodo and Sam even glimpsed the Eye in that window. The Eye was apparently also the sinister, distant red star that Frodo saw from Rivendell. Also, Frodo saw the Eye in Galadriel's mirror, and all the other things and persons he saw were obviously real physical objects, though some belonged to futures that might not necessarily come to pass. I don't think a encyclopedic article should go into elaborate literary criticism in an attempt to prove that the Eye is just a symbol. Rather, it should simply be noted (as the article did before) that the texts have been interpreted in various ways: Yes, Sauron apparently did have a body of sorts, but he is also closely associated with the image of the Eye, and the exact relationship between the Body and the Eye is something Tolkien never really clarified. Leave it at that. This is not the right place to patronize Jackson's supposed "misreading" either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.159.185.125 (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If you review the history, it doesn't say "the Eye" was just metaphorical but metaphysical. I'd say it wasn't metaphorical as the Eye had shape, color, etc., but it's not not really physical, as in you can't touch it (if ever). I read it the "Eye in the tower" stuff as Sauron just standing (sitting, meditating, whatever) there. Frodo and Sam could have still seen the Eye in their mind, like a mental projection or something. A previous edit before the section was merged described the Eye as like an astral projection. In short, others perceive him as an Eye, but he's still humanoid. That's my stance, more or less (articulated by User:CBDunkerson above at Talk:Sauron#Metaphysics?) Is "metaphysical" even the right word? Or Sauron could actually have a flaming eye in his head. :-) . Uthanc (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Tolkien explicitly states in one of the "Letters" that Sauron's form in the Third Age was that of a humanoid Dark Lord-- "large, but not gigantic." He also describes the "Eye" as a metaphor. Sauron could clearly project that image in certain ways, i.e, the Mirror of Galadriel scene. But there was no physical flaming eyeball-- just Sauron's humanoid body, and his ALMOST omniscient, relentless, probing will. 222.230.85.192 (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)TexxasFinn

The Name "Gorthaur" in the Movies

Though not mentioned in the main article, the name "Gorthaur" is used in the Return of the King. That was the chant yelled out when the Minas Tirith was stormed through the broken gate by the horde. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.32.128 (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2007

On the contrary my friend, the masses were chanting the name "Grond", as that is the name of the wolfs head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.50.135 (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

image deleted

I deleted Gorthaur03's picture of sauron. Gorthaur03 undid my edit citing it as vandalsim, i've removed the picture again, it does not belong in the article. It is a piece of fan art drawn by Gorthaur03, it is merely his interpratation of a fictional character. It is not offical in any way, we have images of how sauron has been officaly interprated in different media further down the page. These images are offical and add something to the article. The only thing this image adds to the article is how Gorthaur03 interparates sauron to look like. 131.227.222.145 (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "official". The other images likewise represent someone's imagination of what Sauron may have looked like -- someone not Tolkien. The notion that the films are any more authentic or well-informed than Gorthaur03 is not well-supported. Elphion (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Would a scan from J. R. R. Tolkien: Artist and Illustrator be legit? That's "official". (not above person) 222.126.61.128 (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As I stated those images show how sauron is offical interpartatded in different media, not in the books. Tolkien sold off the rights for film adaptions for lord of the rings and as such Tolkien no longer has any right to say how the characters should be interpartated in other media. That right belongs to the lisence holder who allowed Peter Jackson (or whoever) to interpratate sauron in that way, thus making that interpartation offical (or one of the offical versions) in that media (in this case film). Also these images appear in the right place in the article (the adapation's section). I am in no way saying that those images are what sauron officaly looks like in the books, but they are how he has officaly been interpartated in adaptions lisenced by whoever owns the lisence.

Gorthaur03 image is his interpratation of what sauron looks like, my own interpratation of sauron is different should I drawn my interpratation and put it in the article as well? Or how about my brother draw an image? My dad? Randomfan #35875?

What makes his image more authentic or well-informed than any other Tolkien fan?

As for a scan from J. R. R. Tolkien: Artist and Illustrator I have no idea as i've never heard of it, however if it's offical (been allowed by Tolkien, Christopher Tolkien or the Tolkien Estate) Then its more authentic than Gorthaur03 image (or mine, my brother's, my dad's, Randomfan #35875's).131.227.222.145 (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As I have written somewhere else on the discussion page, this is my inspiration: From the One Wiki to Rule Them All, the Lord of the Rings Encyclopedia.

Look at the second picture "Sauron in the First Age". Gorthaur03 (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter what your inspiration is. Your picture is just fan art, fan art has no place in wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a fan site. What does your image add to the article? Nothing execpt how you interpratate sauron to look like. Is that picture how every one who reads lord of the rings interpratates sauron to look like? No it is only how you interpratate sauron. I will repeat what I asked above What makes your image more authentic or well-informed than any other Tolkien fan?

The fact that you were inspired by another picture is not a reason for the image to be in the article.

Do not put the image in the article unless you have a valaid reason for it being there and it adds to the article.131.227.222.145 (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no argument for removing the picture other that you don't like it. It doesn't contradict Tolkien's description of Sauron more than the so called "official" pictures of him in the Lord of Rings movies. The picture of Sauron as Annatar is from one period of his "life", the picture of the black knight from another and the picture of The Eye from a third period. There is nowhere an accurate description of Sauron during the Sun's First Age though we get glimps of evil eyes, that he is smiling and that he changes his appearence to werewolf/worm at one time. So everyone is free to interpret Sauron's look during those ages. Your perception of what is allowed is problematic since you don't recognize so called "fan art" which in this case will also include Ted Nasmiths wonderful pictures of Tolkien's world.

A much bigger problem however is that people like you scares artists away from contributing to wikipedia because you erase a lot of dedicated work with very thin arguments. So I will turn the argument around and say: The fact that you don't like this interpretation is not a reason for the image to be erased in the article. I am putting the picture into the article again and will continue so unless it is voted down by people on the wikipedia. However I don't think this will happen if people desire future illustrations on wikipedia. Gorthaur03 (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia is intended as a hosting area for fan art. In my opinion the picture should be removed. I'm not going to remove it without further input from other sources. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I came here in response to this request for editor assistance. In my view the image is not appropriately included. Neither the image nor - as best I can tell, Gorthaur03 - are either notable, or authoritative in any way on the subject. This particular illustration simply isn't informative (except perhaps on the subject of "Gorthaur03's interpretation of Sauron"). More generally it is easy to see matters growing *far* out of hand if every Wikipedia editor with a flair for illustration and their own vision of Tolkien characters were permitted to upload their images as they saw fit. We could be subjected either to endless disputes about which particular image was the most illuminating or worthy, or a multiplicity of renderings of the same character. JohnInDC (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There is also a troubling air of inappropriate vanity publishing here, given that Gorthaur03's only contributions to Wikipedia are to insert his portrayals of fantasy characters into the associated articles. Perhaps other editors will disagree but such contributions do not seem entirely consistent with various Wikipedia policies, among others WP:NOR, WP:COI, and WP:NPOV. JohnInDC (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm. At least one of the images that Gorthaur03 claims as "self-created" is not. Compare Gonthaur03-Melian with daVinci. JohnInDC (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(Since I took so long writing this (over an hour) other people have expressed there views, and from the look of it alot better than I have expressed mine, in alot less words. I was going to delete the image again after I postered this, however I'll wait awhile to see what others have to say. This is a reply to Gorthaur03's post)

I have not stated weather I like the picture or not, and further more I will not state weather I like the picture or not, my (or anyone else's) likes and dislikes are not relavent to the article.

As I have already said Tolkien (or the Tolkien estate) does not hold the rights over how Lord of the Rings is portrayed in film, that right belongs to the licence holder, who allowed sauron to be interpratated that way for the films. This makes these pictures of sauron offical for the media they appear in, in this case film. Further more as I have already stated These pictures appear in the adaptations part of the article, and they all clearly state that they show how sauron has been portrayed in film, and as such make no claim that this is how Sauron is portrayed in the books. I will repeate once more that these images are officaly how sauron has been interpratated in media other than the books, they are not "so called offical" they are offical for that media.

As you state everyone is free to interpret Sauron's look during those ages, so I ask again ( for the third time) What makes your image more authentic or well-informed than any other Tolkien fan? You have not yet answered this question. Further more I will repeat two more questions, What does your image add to the article? and is that picture how every one who reads lord of the rings interpratates sauron to look like?

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "Your perception of what is allowed is problematic since you don't recognize so called "fan art"". I am at a compleate loss at what you are trying to say here, are you trying to say that your picture in not fan art due to the fact that I apparantly "don't reconize" fan art, and since I say that your picture is fan art, it isn't because I don't reconize fan art? Please can you make it more clear as to what you mean because I am at a compleate loss.

As for your argument "The fact that you don't like this interpretation is not a reason for the image to be erased in the article." I will repeat what I have said before I have not stated weather I like the picture or not. As far as I can see this is the only argument for leaving the picture up that you present and I think that from what I have said your argument has been rendered moot.131.227.222.145 (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The images from various movies do not "officially interpret Sauron in those media", they "interpret Sauron in those media". The licensing allows them to be published; it doesn't make them "official" in any sense.
Gorthaur03 is not saying that you don't know fan art when you see it, he is saying you don't "recognize" it as valid Wikipedia content, i.e., you don't think it's appropriate content. I think JohnInDC is closer to the target by asking whether it is "notable" (in Wikipedia's sense). For example, Nasmith's art, though arguably fan art, does pass the notability test.
No one yet has spoken to the earlier suggestion that Tolkien's image of Sauron (Artist and Illustrator, no. 181) would be a reasonable image to include. It would be an asset to the article, but I'm not well-versed on fair use, and it is certainly under copyright.

Elphion (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. It may be a nice image but it can lay no particular claim to space on the page. It is not famous, historically significant, or tied in some unique fashion to the subject matter; indeed as best I can tell the only reason that it was ever included here is that its ostensible creator is fond of it and understands Wikipedia well enough to add it. JohnInDC (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Gorthaur03's image contributions turned out to all be actual or likely copyright violations, lifted from other sources, and have been removed from Wikimedia Commons. I am guessing that this particular problem won't crop up again. JohnInDC (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The Rush Reference to the Necromancer

I'm not entirely sure that the Necromancer refered to in Rush's song by the same name is any direct relations to Sauron except in the use of the name, to which Sauron does not lay any explicit ownership of. Without specific reference of the band stating that Sauron was indeed inspiration for "The Necromancer" I think that portion of the article should be removed. Should I be bold? Blackfeathor (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

Shouldn't it be mentioned that Sauron is very similar to the greek σαύρα (literally snake or lizard) which in english could be written saura?--Fern 24 12:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have a source that indicates that Tolkien was influenced by the Greek word, then it makes sense to add it. Otherwise, it's a random similarity that may or may not have any relevance. Elphion (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As I don't have proof, I won't add it, though if I find something I'll add it. :)--Fern 24 16:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The "hurrian" language name meaning "armoured" given in the article is close to an old Germanic name Ser- (with the suffix -on), meaning armoured one as well. 4.255.52.57 (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to infobox

See discussion here. It started as a debate on whether the infobox should be removed from Saruman after a recent GA fail, but has moved on to proposed changes to the M-e character infoboxes to make them less in-universe, as required by Wikipedia's guidelines on writing about fiction. All comments welcome. 4u1e (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Allusions in other works

If the family guy skit is considered trivia, what makes all the other entries in this section more relevant? Surely they should all go? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The brainless compilation of zillions of minor examples should go. But we need to retain something about the phenomenon of zillions of minor examples -- the fact that the Eye has become a meme (hate that word) is worth retaining. Elphion (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it goes that far, a few arty types who include references in their work to try and appear clever do not a cultural phenomenon make. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue it should constitute a significant element of the work. You could drop the bit from that Family Guy episode and no one would notice the difference.Ekwos (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question of why one occurrence is deemed more noteworthy than the others, Family Guy is better known and has more of cultural impact than some of the other examples which are rather obscure. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you delete them then? I'm never one to oppose the deletion of trivia. In theory this is an encyclopedia, and as such should provide a useful overview of the subject and not simply be a dumping ground for every piece of information that can be construed as somehow related to the subject. I'll ask you this - how does the Family Guy bit illuminate the topic of the article more? Perhaps a simple note that the Family Guy referenced it might (maybe), but the details of the actual bit in the episode do not illuminate it at all (and this was the bulk of the Family Guy entry).Ekwos (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Black Speech

Is Black Speech name of Sauron known? Or what did he call himself? The orcs hated Quenya and everything Elvish. Neko85 (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There are some inconsistencies in LOTR about what Sauron called himself. Gandalf says at one point that Sauron does not use Elvish letters; but the Ring's inscription, while in the Black Speech of Mordor, uses an Elvish script. Similarly, when Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas are going over the detritus left by Saruman's slain orcs, they come across helmets bearing a white 'S' rune. Gimli supposes the 'S' is for Sauron, but Aragorn disagrees, stating that Sauron does not use "his right name" or "permit it to be spoken or spelled." The Silmarillion also states that "Of old, there was Sauron the Maiar," suggesting that was indeed his original and right name. But if Aragorn was right, how does one explain the "Mouth of Sauron," who clearly uses 'Sauron' and 'the Lord Sauron the Great' to refer to his Master; also, in Gloin's tale in Rivendell, the Mordor messenger tells Dain that 'Sauron' seeks their friendship, etc.

LOTR has quite a few of these; too hard for Tolkien in pre-computer days to reconcile every small point in a work so complex and long. Maybe these little mysteries add to the enjoyment of the work. I don't care much for readers attempts to "solve" these things and discern Tolkien's intent, however. They were simply mistakes which he had neither the time nor ability to rectify. 214.13.130.104 (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)TexxasFinn

Actually, Tolkien himself was prone to taking the text as correct and trying to rectify issues with it. As an example he had it that all elves had unique names, but then accidently used the same name twice. As a result, he decided elves could be reincarnated.Ekwos (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems rather unlikely that Aule would have named one of his Maia "the Abhorred," so presumably Sauron is not his original name. (Did the Valar and Maiar even speak Quenya before the Elves showed up, though?) Other than that, yeah, obviously some inconsistencies. If the Mouth of Sauron refers directly to Sauron, though, Aragorn must simply be wrong that Sauron does not permit that name to be spoken or spelled. john k (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)