Sauron's loyalty after the First Age

[Eäralda Halatiriva]

Originally Posted by Mumriken

Gollum, Shelob etc did not know Morgoth. Also I'm not sure I'd call them evil. Intersting point you raised here btw, Gollum was loyal to the ring and therefore in a way to Sauron. [/B]

what does this fixation with the giving of Rings tells us about the imaginary world of this particular Legendarium? how about our respective, thoughtful choice of Avatar names here? i'll suggest that it demonstrates that we understand precisely the point about languages in the linguistic sense - just as Tolkien himself knew by his fostering of this vision into the empirical world.


would the Timeless entity whom the Noldor tell us names himself Sauron demonstrate a similar Shadowy fealty to 'Melkor' that, say, Ungweliantë did?

[Mumriken]

Ungoliant was if not above Morgoth at least his equal. Unlike Sauron Morgoth could give Ungoliant little because Ungoliant wanted little. Sauron wanted much and therefore Morgoth had much to give and sauron loved him for it. Now this love might not be the same love you show towards your mother but it's still a form of love.

The Orcs served Sauron out of fear, not love. They fear him (and the Nazgûl) more than they feared their enemies.

Not really, before Sauron the orcs were small tribes with little but no power. Under Sauron many of them gained power. That doesn't mean they didn't fear him but I'd say it was a love/fear relationship. Not so different from the relationship most people have towards their teacher or boss. Just a bit more severe perhaps. Listen to your teacher and you will get good grades, do not listen to him and you will get bad grades. There is a bit of fear in that situation as well...however you love your teacher when he gives you good grades do you not?

If it was written somewhere that Sauron thought he was doing this deliberately to honour Morgoth I would agree with you. I guess I just don't believe that you can be "accidentally loyal". Loyalty in my opinion involves some element of deliberate decision-making.

And Sauron chose to join Morgoth, and he chose not to turn back to valinor after morgoth was captured. He chose to be loyal to Morgoth. He wouldn't be able to show his loyalty better.

Sauron wanted to rule Middle-earth and its inhabitants. Whether or not he had the power to destroy it/them isn't especially relevant: even if he could, he didn't want to.

As I said earlier, it doesn't matter if Sauron wanted order and Morgoth wanted chaos. The characters themself didn't think of themself as being order and chaos. It's only you who think of them that way therefore by "being order" Sauron didn't turn his back to Morgoth. However by destroying Numenor and doing what he did in the 2nd and 3rd ages he showed his loyalty to Morgoth.

The only way he could have been disloyal to morgoth would have been to go back to valinor. You must understand that all humanoids be them fictional or not need other people. If someone gives you something you want you like them, even "evil" beings are capable to love eachother. You might not recognize it as good because you consider them evil. If Tolkien thought Sauron was truly evil, well that is a biased position. Morgoth was truly evil, but Sauron...no I don't think so. If Sauron was the one thrown out and Morgoth remained I don't think Morgoth would care at all. However in Sauron there is still some admiration and love towards superior beings. Even if love is a strong word to use I think this is the case.

He was loyal to morgoth.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Mumriken

If Tolkien thought Sauron was truly evil, well that is a biased position. Morgoth was truly evil, but Sauron...no I don't think so.

Well if we can't take Professor Tolkien's word for it I don't know what we can do. While he didn't believe in absolute evil, he thought that Sauron was about as close as you could get:

In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as possible. ~Letter 183.

This suggests to me that Sauron had gone beyond any capacity for a positive emotion like love or admiration. In the same letter he makes this remark:

Sauron desired to be a God-King, and was held to be this by his servants; if he had been victorious he would have demanded divine honour from all rational creatures and absolute temporal power over the whole world.

This is the same quote which includes the note about him pretending to be Morgoth. It doesn't seem to leave much room for Morgoth in Sauron's heirarchy; if he was still loyal, wouldn't he have set up Morgoth as god (even though he was in the void, he could do it in tribute to him or the memory of him) and portrayed himself simply as a disciple? It seems that he wanted the glory for himself. I like to think that Professor Tolkien understood the motivations of his characters better than any of us.
However, in regards to Sauron admiring and admitting the love of superior beings, he wrote this (sorry for the big quote):

there was seen the effect of Melkor upon Sauron: he spoke of Melkor in Melkor’s own terms: as a god, or even as God. This may have been the residue of a state which was in a sense a shadow of good: the ability once in Sauron at least to admire or admit the superiority of a being other than himself. Melkor, and still more Sauron himself afterwards, both profited by this darkened shadow of good and services of ‘worshippers’. But it may be doubted whether even such a shadow of good was still sincerely operative in Sauron by that time. His cunning motive is probably best expressed thus. To wean one of the God-fearing from their allegiance it is best to propound another unseen object of allegiance and another hope of benefits; propound to him a Lord who will sanction what he desires and not forbid it. Sauron, apparently a defeated rival for world-power, now a mere hostage, can hardly propound himself; but as the former servant and disciple of Melkor, the worship of Melkor will raise him from hostage to high priest. ~Morgoth's Ring.

So I guess the Professor leaves it up to us to make up our own minds on the subject. We can look at it in two ways:
1. Sauron promoted Morgoth as a god because he still admired his superiority.
2. Sauron exploited the memory of Morgoth just to make himself powerful; it was pure manipulation and nothing more.
In the end there's some room for both points of view, although personally I find the second one more supportable and consistent with other examples from the texts. I guess the difference here is that I'm relying mostly on scrutiny of Professor Tolkien's writing rather than a broader view of the human condition (in so far as it applies to a non-human fictional character).

[Eäralda Halatiriva]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Well if we can't take Professor Tolkien's word for it I don't know what we can do. While he didn't believe in absolute evil, he thought that Sauron was about as close as you could get

what makes you assume that this Legendarium is a closed, rather than an open code? that it can be translated only in terms of Monotheistic tradition, even if said subcreation clearly reflects in very many ways the unconscious ontology of Tolkien?

for the audience - what is this process and conversation saying to you?

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Eäralda Halatiriva

what makes you assume that this Legendarium is a closed, rather than an open code?

I suppose because Professor Tolkien termed it a "sub-creation" and he was the "sub-creator". As such while there are numerous undisclosed elements upon which we can only speculate, there are certain aspects made explicit in notes, letters and such about things which, were they referent to parts of the primary world we would consider subjective but which the "sub-creator" can describe objectively in regards to his "sub-creation". That's at least how I look at it. I know some people hold that only what we read in The Lord of the Rings can be taken at face value (and that not even The Hobbit and certainly not The Silmarillion, let alone other material, can be read as a completely accurate portrayal of the Professor's vision) but I find that to be a limiting notion. As far as I'm concerned if Professor Tolkien wrote it and it's not later contradicted anywhere by something he wrote then within the "sub-creation" of Middle-earth it's objectively true - unless he himself left it open for speculation, of course!

[Eäralda Halatiriva]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I suppose because Professor Tolkien termed it a "sub-creation" and he was the "sub-creator". As such while there are numerous undisclosed elements upon which we can only speculate, there are certain aspects made explicit in notes, letters and such about things which, were they referent to parts of the primary world we would consider subjective but which the "sub-creator" can describe objectively in regards to his "sub-creation". That's at least how I look at it. I know some people hold that only what we read in The Lord of the Rings can be taken at face value (and that not even The Hobbit and certainly not The Silmarillion, let alone other material, can be read as a completely accurate portrayal of the Professor's vision) but I find that to be a limiting notion. As far as I'm concerned if Professor Tolkien wrote it and it's not later contradicted anywhere by something he wrote then within the "sub-creation" of Middle-earth it's objectively true - unless he himself left it open for speculation, of course!

and your speculative suppositions are, well, truthful

but i suppose this is like saying that all Signs can have only one meaning, now isn't it? but i will opine that, all Signs, all codes are infinitely fertile, and fecund, yes? inter-subjectively, naturally.

since when was creativity a one-way street? what would Belegûr have to say on that?

[Mumriken]

1. Sauron promoted Morgoth as a god because he still admired his superiority.
2. Sauron exploited the memory of Morgoth just to make himself powerful; it was pure manipulation and nothing more.
In the end there's some room for both points of view, although personally I find the second one more supportable and consistent with other examples from the texts. I guess the difference here is that I'm relying mostly on scrutiny of Professor Tolkien's writing rather than a broader view of the human condition (in so far as it applies to a non-human fictional character).

Why choose Morgoth and not anyone else to put forth as a false god for people to worship? Not only that but his actions all speaks for loyalty towards morgoth. However I do think with the ages passing some of the loyalty was forgotten, he became more consumed by his own being so to speak.

[Eäralda Halatiriva]

Originally Posted by Mumriken

Ungoliant was if not above Morgoth at least his equal. Unlike Sauron Morgoth could give Ungoliant little because Ungoliant wanted little.

would her Name give to her to the exclusion of her will fealty to 'Melkor', being that he is the Source of Theological Evil - or is this naming process a reflection of the perceptual "toolkit" of Rúmil?