Luthien, Huan and Sauron

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Was there a particular reason why Luthien asked Huan to release Sauron from his grip in Tol-in-Gaurhoth? Surely Huan could have slain Sauron, and Luthien could have had the mastery of the tower at the same time.

[Sharkû]

Much the same reason why Frodo released Gollum, I take it -- the mercy and pity evident in Tolkien's wise characters.

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

It's actually elementary. She knew Thu had learned his lesson and had enough. She may have known Huan wouldn't kill him permenantly, but she also wanted to ensure safety. So he crippled Sauron in all three forms (Gorthaur, Serpent, Vampire) and sent him running away with rapid loss of his black blood. How she knew Sauron wouldn't be back ever again in that age, let alone not reporting back to Melkor is anyone's guess. So you're a new reader to the Silm huh? Ah, those were the days. . . .

[Morgoth Bauglir]

maybe he didnt inflict enough damage upon him or something

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I'm not a new Silm reader, I'm reading it for the 3rd time now. I just go through phases of wondering and this is one of them.

Couldn't Luthien have foreseen that Sauron would be back if Huan let him go back to Morgoth? She was the greatest after all.

Sharku, (meaning no disrespect o mighty member number 3), like Frodo and Gollum? Sauron had done more evil deeds than Gollum had. Frodo let Gollum go because he thought that he would just go into the Mountain and toss the Ring into the fire. The slaying of Gollum was unnecessary (so he thought)

If the War would have turned for the better by the slaying of Gollum then I am confident Frodo would have done just that for the good of Middle Earth.

However, the end of Sauron would have helped dramatically in the days to come, and it would have unquestionably have been for good.

[akhtene]

For one thing, perhaps Luthien (elf) and Huan (dog, even though born in Valinor) weren't able to kill Sauron (maia). And to deprive him of his body and let the evil spirit wander around - what good would it do?
Instead Luthien demanded that Sauron yield to her the mastery of his tower where Beren and other prisoners were kept. Otherwise, how would she hope to overpower the garrison of the tower, especially with Sauron's spirit around?

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

Ah, she demanded the mastery and hurt Sauron's pride-the ultimate of insults. But seriously, she did foresee things, and she couldn't have killed him dead enough that he couldn't have come back (by that I mean Huan couldn't have). Maybe she foresaw he was mans problem to deal with, not hers. . .

[Rhudladion]

Sharku, (meaning no disrespect o mighty member number 3), like Frodo and Gollum? Sauron had done more evil deeds than Gollum had. Frodo let Gollum go because he thought that he would just go into the Mountain and toss the Ring into the fire. The slaying of Gollum was unnecessary (so he thought)

If the War would have turned for the better by the slaying of Gollum then I am confident Frodo would have done just that for the good of Middle Earth.


Eomer of the Rohirrim, I see your point, but there is not doubt in my mind that pity itself played a much larger role in Frodo's release of Gollum than did Frodo's belief in his ability to accomplish the task. Furthermore, it seems a shaky assumption to say that Frodo did not think killing Gollum would greatly benefit the cause; especially with gandalf always lending obscure credibility to Gollum's "part to play".

Therefore, I think "o mighty member number 3's" assesment and conclusion is pretty much right on.

[Tirinor]

I disagree with the pity angle. gollum was pityable, and in most ways "inferior" to Frodo. Sauron was neither to Luthien. Sauron was a leader and orchestrater of tremendous and deliberate evil. Gollum was acting out of personal wretchedness and pain. Big difference. It might be argued that Luthien showed the same pity to Sauron as Mandos showed Melkor, but I would also disagree with that. Melkor played the part of one reformed, and he had also served a sentence. not to mention he was dealing with equals in power, not bullying those of less power.

I think that it was a practical decision, as the Keeper and Akhtene have laid out.

Practicality doesn't sound too noble though, so to satify those who want there to be a-little-something-more to the choice to not kill Sauron, I would propose that the choice was made out of honor and properness also. Once Sauron was in a position of submission, to go through with the killing would be an execution, and I do not believe Tolkien ever wrote an execution executed by the good side (I might be wrong on that). so (back to practicality), the other choice would be to keep him as a prisoner. This would have been very inconvenient due to the hostile setting, concern for the present mission, and difficulty in containing a maiar. The only practical choice was to wound and discard.
One might say that it technically would not be an execution since his spirit would not have been destroyed, from some perspectives that might be true, but I think that from an elf's perspective it would not be true. and there is also the theory that has been stated earlier that a sauron spirit might prove to be more of a nusaince than a wounded sauron in a "body" would be.

[Tirinor]

Therefore, I think "o mighty member number 3's" assesment and conclusion is pretty much right on.

Hey Rhud, it's been a while. While I agree with your point about Frodo's pity toward Gollum, you say nothing of how that relates to Luthien and Sauron. At best you could say that Eomer of the Rohirrim's statement does not disprove Sharku's conclusion of luthien's actions being motivated by the same "wisdom" as Frodo's, since all you argued was that Frodo was indeed mainly motivated by pity. therefore, you could say "therefore... Sharku is not nessessarily wrong." But to say "therefore...it is right on," you would have to addres the validity of the conclusion, not just the validity of one of his premises. smilies/smile.gif

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

You guys are making my brain hurt with this logic talk. I'll have to read the thread in full later. I don't have the Sil right now but doesn't it say that they could have sent Sauron back to his master in such a shambolic state that he couldn't have assumed form again?

That's just to maybe eliminate the idea of lack of capability of Luthien and Huan.

[Rhudladion]

You are correct Tirinor. I am ashamed...

I should have said, "I agree with Sharku."

However, you present some very good points, though I don't understand why one must be inferior to another in order to be pitied by the other. Furthermore, was not Sauron "warped" and coaxed into his evil state much like Gollum (correct me if I am wrong), and therefore worthy of some pity?

[Galorme]

I do not believe Tolkien ever wrote an execution executed by the good side (I might be wrong on that).

There have been a few, Melkor's Messenger and indeed Melkor himself had their bodies destroyed by the Valar. Oh yeah and Eol the dark elf for killing his wife was executed by Turgon. Maybe you would count Barahir by Turin, but maybe not.

But i agree, to kill Sauron would have been to resort to the tactics of the enemy. There was nothing to be gained by killing Sauron as they were not in any immediate danger from him, and to kill him because he could cause evil in the future would be wrong. What if Elrond had executed Boromir because he felt he was too proud and may be tempted? Its like the Hitler question: Would a true good person kill Hitler as a small child who had at that point done nothing wrong (yet)?

[Tirinor]

was not Sauron "warped" and coaxed into his evil state much like Gollum (correct me if I am wrong), and therefore worthy of some pity?

maybe so.

I guess what it comes down to is if the subject is redeemable, or more importantly, if the one showing pity thinks that the subject is redeemable. It seems that pity spent on the unredeemable is wasted.

In the case of Melkor, Gollum, and Sauraman, the ones offering pity to them believed them to be redeemable (I think). So, did Luthien believe Sauron to be redeemable? I would say no. the guy is guarding her tortured boyfriend, and is trying to kill her dog. not to mention all the other evils he has done. had he given any indication of good in the past? perhaps before he fell, but Luthien wouldn't have been around to see it.

I couldn't say for sure if she acted out of pity or not, it seems more likely that she was acting out of honor and practicality.


I don't understand why one must be inferior to another in order to be pitied by the other.

I didn't say one must be inferior. In the three cases of pity that have been referenced the relationship of the pityers to the pityees is one of equality or superiority. I realize that that doesn't rule out the possibility of an inferior pitying a superior, but it is an interesting pattern.

[Tirinor]

thanks for the execution information, Galorme.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Well, Hitler hadn't done anything wrong as a child. Sauron, on the other hand, had done many harmful deeds and, it would seem to any conscience individual, would do so again given the chance.

Yeah, Sauron was corrupted (beyond redemption methinks) but that leads onto another discussion about whether Melkor was corrupted, and I know that one is ghosting about somewhere on this site.

[Tirinor]

I don't mean to be beating my opinion into the ground on this one, but I wanted to make another clarification regarding the relationship between pityer and pityee. in the three cases mentioned before, the pity was given in peace time or post-resolution, the situation was well in the hand of the pityer.
In the case of Luthien and Sauron, the situation was one of wartime and agression, and although the immediate situation was in the hand (or mouth) of Huan, the greater situation was most definately not. All this is to say, I think it must have been some other reason than pity that Luthien let Sauron go.

Bonus follow up for those in the pity party: If you believe Sauron was released out of pity, what do you think Luthien would have done if it was a balrog in that situation?

[Galorme]

Maybe Luthien just wasn't "into" killing. She didn't want to take any life at all, and the fact that she acheived her aims without any killing shows she didn't need to. She never killed and never needed to kill. Good on her i say!

Of course no wars can really be won that way, not when one side is willing to kill.

[Tirinor]

the fact that she acheived her aims without any killing shows she didn't need to. She never killed and never needed to kill.

Very good point Galorme. I hadn't thought of it in quite that way.
Luthien's objective was to save her beau. Killing Sauron was not her objective, getting past him was. When a way was made, she was satisfied. Just because she could have accomplished what might have been the other elves' objective doesn't mean she should have or would have. This point is supported by the trouble that ensues after Beren over-reaches his objective by trying for a second Silmaril.

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Tirinor ]

[Galorme]

They have a simple love, they dont want to have anything to do with the outside world. They are perfectly happy, and I think that they would be perfectly happy in thralldom as long as they were together. The only reason that they got into trouble was that Thingol would up their love with the War of the Jewls. Thankyou Tirinor, thats exactly what I was thinking.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Agreed. Thanks.