Flaws in Lord of the Rings... Yes in the book.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I wouldn't call Sauron exactly happy-go-lucky. I imagine his beginnings to have been much like Saruman's: a somewhat humourless individual, determined that everything would be better if only everyone would do things his way. However, after many centuries as Morgoth's disciple, and still more as a Dark Lord in his own right, I doubt that there was anything to his plans but the simple will to subjugate everyone and everything in Arda to his will, and to become both emperor and god over the entire world.

After the fall of Morgoth in the War of Wrath, Sauron was given the opportunity to leave this path, and to return to the rightful rôle of the Ainur: that of protectors and caretakers of the world for the Children of Ilúvatar. The Silmarillion says:

When Thangorodrim was broken and Morgoth overthrown, Sauron put on his fair hue again and did obeisance to Eönwë, the herald of Manwë, and abjured all his evil deeds. And some hold that this was not at first falsely done, but that Sauron in truth repented, if only out of fear, being dismayed by the fall of Morgoth and the great wrath of the Lords of the West. But it was not within the power of Eönwë to pardon those of his own order, and he commanded Sauron to return to Aman and there receive the judgement of Manwë. Then Sauron was ashamed, and he was unwilling to return in humiliation and to receive from the Valar a sentence, it might be, of long servitude in proof of his good faith; for under Morgoth his power had been great. Therefore when Eönwë departed he hid himself in Middle-earth; and he fell back into evil, for the bonds that Morgoth had laid upon him were very strong.

Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age

Tolkien had a very clear idea of Sauron's personality and motivation, and it does not seem unconvincing to me. That he does not choose to explore it in The Lord of the Rings could be as simple a matter as not having the wherewithal to do so within his narrative context: that of a work compiled from various accounts of the War of the Ring. Tolkien did not adhere to this at all faithfully, but on such major points as Sauron's history and personality he did not fall victim to the oversights that occur elsewhere in the book. The only way for the chroniclers to know anything about Sauron would be for a character such as Gandalf, Elrond or Galadriel to tell them about him; and with so much going on after the end of the war, it's not surprising that people were not too concerned with asking questions about whence their gladly forgotten enemy had come.

I find the comparison between The Lord of the Rings and Wagner's Ring Cycle a little too hard to swallow. In the Nibelungenlied, the Nibelung's ring carries a curse that has been consciously placed on it by a former owner, and this is what causes it to lead its bearers to destruction. Tolkien's One Ring causes evil by the very nature of its construction: its entire purpose and existence is a curse, which is why it must be destroyed. The Ring is evil, not because it confers power, but because it is an instrument of evil; and Tolkien is very specific about his intent to show that one cannot expect to use the weapons of evil to do good. His idea is not that power corrupts, but that evil corrupts and delights in corrupting good, as it does with Saruman and Boromir. Since this is a perfectly reasonable philosophical position, particularly for a Christian, there seems nothing wrong with it that is not also wrong with myth, Christian moral philosophy and certain strands of twentieth-century literature in general.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 8:42 AM February 07, 2004: Message edited by: The Squatter of Amon Rûdh ]