Origianlly posted by Nogrod:
Quote:
|
Is it just that these are written afterwards and the Sauron of the LotR is just the immature and incomplete version of the Sauron to whom Tolkien finally had time to invest and think about later?
|
Actually, the Sauron of "The Sil'" pre-dates the Sauron of "The Lord of the Rings." Tolkien began to write "The Simarillion" back in the twenties! I think that the answer, at least in this case, lies in the fact that Tolkien wanted to specifically obscure the evil force, in order to make it generic. Any personality he may have been tempted to add was deleted in early drafts to make Sauron deliberately a 'force' instead of a villain. If you give him a personality, he becomes a villain, rather than a force for evil. "The Lord of the Rings" was 'deliberately Catholic, in the revision.' As much as he claimed to hate allegory, he was creating a miracle play, a medieval allegory anyway. After all, he was a teacher. What better way to get faceless pupils (readers, out in the world) to actually think about his work, rather than just read it as a great adventure? Clearly, he had a greater purpose than just telling a wonderful story, or else his work would have been just as obscured by 'Harry Potter' as 'Harry Potter' has been recently obscured by the "Twilight" stories. We're all still here because Tolkien's story has more to offer than just a great adventure (not that it's not a great adventure! but it is so much more.)
I'll admit, I would like to see Sauron in person, resplendent with ego and dark doubt, but that would obscure his purpose. 'The Sil' (as published) was written over the couse of sixty-plus years. "The Lord of the Rings" was written specifically for publication, as a single story. It was not even meant as a trilogy. The publisher simply could not afford the amount of paper, after WWII, to print the whole thing at once. The trilogy divisions were artifically imposed by Tolkien out of practical necessity.
I think that Tolkien used the 'device' of the Hobbits' point-of-view to keep Sauron deliberately obscure in order to make him symbolic rather than specific. He clearly knew who Sauron was, after years of thinking and writing about Middle-Earth in terms of 'The Sil'. I feel he very specifically wanted to make the villains with personality just pawns in the greater scheme, like Saruman, or Ted Sandyman. 'Sauron' as a villain was just a symbol, not a character.
Besides, it's scarier when you never see the bad guy. Don't forget, you're two-thirds of the way through the movie 'Jaws" before you ever see the Shark! Even then, it's just glimpses until the climax! Now that's scary!