Talk:Sauron

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|Missing image
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|Missing image
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. User:Anárion/sig 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. User:Anárion/sig 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