Sympathy for the Devil?

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

I think that if Sauron suffered because of the loss of the Ring, it was not the same kind of torment that lesser bearers of it would have felt. Sitting there for three thousand years without it, his "torment" would have been, I think, bitterness and anger, mostly directed toward the Men and Elves who deprived him of his Ring and its power. I rather doubt he would have consciously blamed himself for not considering the possibility of its loss, but like most profoundly bitter and angry persons who are in denial of their own part in their current circumstances, it would have gnawed at him, even unacknowledged. And yet, that bitterness and anger often comes to dominate the lives of those who will not let go of it.

So did he feel some kind of torment over the loss of the Ring? Psychologically, yes, I imagine he did. Was it the kind of suffering for which I could pity him? Not really, no more than I could feel sympathy for an abuser who is upset because his victim finds a way to stop the abuse. Of course, there's a huge amount of personal experience behind this train of thought, so take it as you will.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

No, he occupied Dol Guldur primarily as a location from which to search for the Ring

Not at all. Sauron had no inkling what had become of the Ring until the very late Third Age. Circa TA 1000 he couldn't return to Mordor- Gondor was at the height of its imperial power, and Mordor was closely guarded. Why southern Mirkwood? The real reason of course was that T had said so in The Hobbit. But if we must back-write, it seems clear that Sauron wanted a place where he could remain concealed and his identity secret, while at the same time keeping an eye on his enemies. Amon Lanc was centrally located, hard to reach, and close to both the frontier provinces of Gondor and the main traffic artery of Middle-earth, as well as the Hithaeglir where Orcs still lurked. Lorien wasn't a factor, since Galadriel would not take up residence there for another 1800 years.

According to The Tale of Years, when Gandalf re-enters Dol Guldur in TA 2850, he learns who the Necromancer is, and that he is "seeking for news of the One." While Sauron would have known the Ring still existed, there is no reason at all to think that he knew what had happened to it, or even if it was still in Middle-earth. Only a century later, ca. 2939, does Sauron begin to search the River near the Gladden. From this Saruman concludes that Sauron "has learned of Isildur's end;" unsaid but just as important, Sauron has finally learned that Isildur took it in the first place.

[alatar]

Was Cirdan tormented by the loss of Narya, when the Shipwright gave it over to Gandalf, meaning, when a Ring was in alignment with the character of the bearer (good=good), and the relative power of said Ring was close to that of bearer (maia=very old elf or maia), all factored with the amount of exposure, there wasn't so much torment at the loss.

Sauron, maker of the One, voluntarily sets it down. Cirdan gives his away.

Sam has a little torment; Frodo much more. Bilbo not too much, and Gollum, though wicked, was conflicted - on the edge of good and evil - and so very tormented.

On the other hand, something's not adding up...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

But were the 'unsullied' Three addictive like the Sauronian rings?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

But were the 'unsullied' Three addictive like the Sauronian rings?

Maybe that's what I'm asking? If not, then it's something about the Ring or Rings that Sauron made. Were the Seven or the Nine addictive? If not, then it's all about the One. And if so I would be hesitant to think that Sauron was addicted to his own.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by alatar

Was Cirdan tormented by the loss of Narya, when the Shipwright gave it over to Gandalf, meaning, when a Ring was in alignment with the character of the bearer (good=good), and the relative power of said Ring was close to that of bearer (maia=very old elf or maia), all factored with the amount of exposure, there wasn't so much torment at the loss.

I would question whether the Three fostered the sense of possessiveness that were hallmarks of the other Great Rings.
They were made with different purposes and had some obvious dissimilarities.

Edit- x'd with WCH

[Boromir88]

Interesting question about the 3 elven rings. Even after the one was destroyed, the 3 supposedly lost their power, but Elrond, Galadriel, and Gandalf all keep them. That doesn't necessarily mean an addiction to their rings, but the Elves weakness was their inability to change. They wanted to preserve the way things were, and stay unchanged...the Elven Rings (at least for Elrond and Galadriel) did this. When the One is destroyed, I wonder if with the loss of power in their Rings, the fading of Lothlorien and Rivendell, if the trip to the Undying Lands was part of the Elves inability to accept change? And in the ability of the Elven Rings to protect, preserve, and even slow time and decay, if that is what the Elves were addicted to?

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Interesting question about the 3 elven rings. Even after the one was destroyed, the 3 supposedly lost their power, but Elrond, Galadriel, and Gandalf all keep them. That doesn't necessarily mean an addiction to their rings, but the Elves weakness was their inability to change. They wanted to preserve the way things were, and stay unchanged...the Elven Rings (at least for Elrond and Galadriel) did this. When the One is destroyed, I wonder if with the loss of power in their Rings, the fading of Lothlorien and Rivendell, if the trip to the Undying Lands was part of the Elves inability to accept change? And in the ability of the Elven Rings to protect, preserve, and even slow time and decay, if that is what the Elves were addicted to?

Another possible reason why the three were taken by their owners to the grey havens may have been as a safeguard. Elrond says the three "will fail", when asked by Frodo post adventures. I tend to interpret this as mein that as of the moment he was talking the three hadn't failed yet i.e. the rings power would wane gradually like a dying battery. By the time of the sailing the Three were likey dimished in power, but diminished isn't the same thing as "dead". Even with lessened and failing power the Three may have just been too dangerous to be left on ME, and run the risk of falling into less ethical or wise hands than those which had held them when they were at full strength. Even in thier weakened state I would imagine an inexperianced hand could do a lot of damage with them; it was just safer that they go beyond the reach of anyone.

[alatar]

Pleased to meet you...hope you guess my name...

What I wonder is if Eru has any sympathy for either Melkor or Sauron. Tolkien was a Christian, and so surely read the parable of the prodigal son:

Originally Posted by Luke 15:11-32

Jesus continued: "There was a man who had two sons. The younger one said to his father, 'Father, give me my share of the estate.' So he divided his property between them.

"Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.

"When he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.' So he got up and went to his father.

"But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

"The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'

"But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate. For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate.

"Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 'Your brother has come,' he replied, 'and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.'

"The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. But he answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!'

" 'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' "

Now, surely this parable would necessitate Melkor or Sauron to make some attempt at repentance and reconciliation for Eru to act as the father in the parable, but did you ever wonder if, at the end of all things, after Dagor Dagorath, Eru opens his arms to those that fell away?