I have questions about Sauron.

[The_Spinster]

What race was Sauron?

What has he looked like, before he made the one ring?

Was he evil from the beginning, or had something happened to cause him to turn to evil?

Is he dead, because destroying the one ring is the same as killing him?

Should Middle-Earth expect Sauron's boss, or a Sauron worshiping cult, or an insane follower of Sauron to turn up in the fourth age, and attempt another Middle-Earth domination plan?

[MourneBlade]

Easy answer: GO READ THE BOOKS, as has been suggested before. Especially the Appendices in the back of the books. You can learn a lot that way.

[Radhruin_EU]

What race was Sauron?

Originally a Maia, which was a sort of 'angelic' spirit-being. So once he turned evil he was sort of 'demonic' instead.

What has he looked like, before he made the one ring?

He could take all sorts of different physical forms. When he was trying to trick the Elves he made himself look incredibly good-looking and regal. Later on he ended up only able to take a horrible-looking, evil shape.

Was he evil from the beginning, or had something happened to cause him to turn to evil?

The original Dark Lord, Melkor (a.k.a. Morgoth) persuaded him to join him.

Is he dead, because destroying the one ring is the same as killing him?

Nope, just left disembodied and powerless and stuck like that forever.

Should Middle-Earth expect Sauron's boss, or a Sauron worshiping cult, or an insane follower of Sauron to turn up in the fourth age, and attempt another Middle-Earth domination plan?

Sauron's boss was taken out at the end of the First Age and banished from the world, so no (not until the end of the world, anyway). There were Sauron cults in much the same way the game shows (many Men in the East and South worshipped him as if he were a god and there were evil temples, human sacrifices, all that sort of thing). And yeah, evil didn't go away when Sauron was taken out but it was reduced to a merely human scale, with no more immortal super-villains.

[LagunaD2]

[...]

Sauron's boss was taken out at the end of the First Age and banished from the world, so no (not until the end of the world, anyway). There were Sauron cults in much the same way the game shows (many Men in the East and South worshipped him as if he were a god and there were evil temples, human sacrifices, all that sort of thing). And yeah, evil didn't go away when Sauron was taken out but it was reduced to a merely human scale, with no more immortal super-villains.

Great answer.

Tolkien never revealed any more "immortal super-villains", but I wouldn't say they were entirely ruled out, either.

The two Istari who disappeared into the East might have fallen, as Saruman did.

There might also be more Balrogs, spawn of Ungoliant, or other unnatural horrors lurking in the corners of Middle-earth...

[Bauglin]

Tolkien never revealed any more "immortal super-villains", but I wouldn't say they were entirely ruled out, either.

He actually may have ruled them out, in some of the letters he wrote, anyway. I've "lent out" (i.e., probably lost for good) my copy of The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, so I can't confirm the wording or meaning of the following - take them how you will.

In letter 131, he describes the Third Age as being (among other things) "the last also in which Evil assumes a single dominant incarnate shape."

In letter 156, he writes "Never again (unless it be before the great End) will an evil daemon be incarnate as a physical enemy" (and proceeds to describe how such an enemy will likely work behind the scenes, rather than out in the open).

So while there are still "big bads" in the world, none will be as big, bad, greedy in scope, or immediately apparent as Sauron was. Even Saruman was just a flash in the pan (relatively speaking).

[Radhruin_EU]

He actually may have ruled them out, in some of the letters he wrote, anyway. I've "lent out" (i.e., probably lost for good) my copy of The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, so I can't confirm the wording or meaning of the following - take them how you will.

In letter 131, he describes the Third Age as being (among other things) "the last also in which Evil assumes a single dominant incarnate shape."

In letter 156, he writes "Never again (unless it be before the great End) will an evil daemon be incarnate as a physical enemy" (and proceeds to describe how such an enemy will likely work behind the scenes, rather than out in the open).

So while there are still "big bads" in the world, none will be as big, bad, greedy in scope, or immediately apparent as Sauron was. Even Saruman was just a flash in the pan (relatively speaking).

As he discusses in letter 156, the end of the Third Age marks the point at which the world loses its mythic elements. There's a shift away from evil being physically incarnate and having to be physically resisted to it being merely spiritual, exerting influence over Men behind the scenes. The same goes with the other side of the conflict, with the departure of the High Elves (and Gandalf) as incarnate mythic beings who'd originally come from Valinor.

[Elebraen]

I think I have questions, too, but not so much about Sauron.

Sauron was a Maia (ranks lower than a Vala but higher than a non-magical people) ... started off good but became evil as a student of Morgoth (Vala).
Sauron's equal but opposite nemesis in the balance of the universe would seem to be Gandalf, another Maia, and I am inclined to believe he's the mirror of Galadriel.
Is Gandalf a mirror of Galadriel?

Saruman was a Maia ... also started off good but became evil, a mirror of Sauron.
Saruman's equal but opposite nemesis in the balance of the universe would seem to be Galadriel, who is not stated as being a Maia, but...
Galadriel was a student of Yavanna (Vala) and Aulë (Vala) to learn her own magic powers, therefore, she was not a Vala, but she was a magic user, so that would also make her a Maia. Rohan stands between Isengard and Lothlorien, and Galadriel's army was pitted against Saruman's army at Helm's Deep.
Is Galadriel a Maia?

Race:
I don't think there was any race other than elves for the Maia who studied under the Vala. The dwarves were developed by one of the impatient Vala who couldn't wait for the elves to get made, but the dwarves were never students of any other Vala other than the one who made them. Gifted in their own craftsmanship, but dwarven magic was not really considered to be Maia magic, although technically, it probably could be as they would need to study under their own Vala, Aulë, to learn it, the same Vala that Galadriel studied under. And not all elves became Maia, magic wielders.
Could magic wielding dwarves be considered Maiar? Would Gimli have been considered one of the Maia by Galadriel having both studied under the same Vala that Gimli would have earned a trip later to Valinor with Legolas?

Sauron dead? *Shaking my head* You can't kill an immortal without dismantling the created foundation structure of the universe. You can neutralize an immortal, like neutralizing the pH balance of the soil. Strength diminished. Morgoth (Vala), who is not the creator, Eru Iluvatar, is neutralized by the Void, the "Not the Universe" existence that balances the created universe. Morgoth is a creation that continues to exist within a materialized environment of non-creation. Morgoth may be immortal there as evil incarnate, but his own evil creations will immediately turn into nothing in the Void, effectively neutralizing him.

Picture this: Saruman started off good, but as a deliberate Sauron neutralizing war strategy, Saruman and Galadriel went head to head with selected soldiers, acid or alkaline, to try to achieve complete neutralization in Rohan. And the humans who lived there, not being immortals themselves, just think there's a deadly war going on between two of their magical benefactors and they're the non-magical pickles in the middle. Immortals don't die, so they're all good with this Sauron neutralization war strategy. The willing self-sacrifice of an immortal gets put towards their "Exile Karma" instead.

[Halphast]

Saruman's equal but opposite nemesis in the balance of the universe would seem to be Galadriel, who is not stated as being a Maia, but...
Galadriel was a student of Yavanna (Vala) and Aulë (Vala) to learn her own magic powers, therefore, she was not a Vala, but she was a magic user, so that would also make her a Maia. Rohan stands between Isengard and Lothlorien, and Galadriel's army was pitted against Saruman's army at Helm's Deep.
Is Galadriel a Maia?

Galadriel learned from Yavanna and Aule but not to gain magical powers of creation/destruction, which were exclusive to higher beings. Her magic came primarily from the ring Nenya, which is why Lothlorien began to fade when the rings lost their power. It wasn't sustained by Galadriel herself. Also Galadriel's army was never at Helm's Deep... that was just added for the movie.

The Hobbit movies further played up the idea of Galadriel versus Sauron by showing her magically overpowering the Necromancer but that's also just in the movies.

The books more clearly suggest Sauron versus Gandalf (the White) as the balance of spiritual powers in the physical world, but Gandalf is not sure he's strong enough, for his power is new and Sauron has spent ages building his own- and if Sauron had gotten his ring back he would have overpowered even Gandalf.

As for destroying or killing Sauron, I also think it's impossible, but given that he poured so much of his power into the Ring, when it was destroyed Sauron became so weak he couldn't even manifest anymore- he rose up as a great evil spirit in the sky, but then couldn't even hold himself together and a wind scattered him into practically nothing. He can't grow again and will never take shape again, as good as destroyed.

[Radhruin_EU]

Galadriel learned from Yavanna and Aule but not to gain magical powers of creation/destruction, which were exclusive to higher beings. Her magic came primarily from the ring Nenya, which is why Lothlorien began to fade when the rings lost their power. It wasn't sustained by Galadriel herself. Also Galadriel's army was never at Helm's Deep... that was just added for the movie.

Galadriel needed the power of Nenya to preserve Lorien from the ravages of time (one of the stated powers of the Three was to 'preserve all things unstained') but she had considerable power of her own and I don't think you can say she owed most of her power to that ring. She was from the royal house of the Noldor, she was Finwe's granddaughter, Feanor's niece and Finrod's sister (and Finrod was evidently powerful as he fought a magical duel against Sauron, although of course he lost). And she'd studied under Melian the Maia, too. She had the power to pull down Dol Guldur's walls (much as Luthien did at Tol-in-Gaurhoth) and by implication that would have been by her own power as the Three Rings weren't weapons or tools of destruction. She seems to have had more 'oomph' than Elrond did and he'd got a ring, too (and it was supposed to be the most powerful of the Three, at that).

[Elebraen]

Galadriel learned from Yavanna and Aule but not to gain magical powers of creation/destruction, which were exclusive to higher beings. Her magic came primarily from the ring Nenya, which is why Lothlorien began to fade when the rings lost their power. It wasn't sustained by Galadriel herself. Also Galadriel's army was never at Helm's Deep... that was just added for the movie.

The Hobbit movies further played up the idea of Galadriel versus Sauron by showing her magically overpowering the Necromancer but that's also just in the movies.

The books more clearly suggest Sauron versus Gandalf (the White) as the balance of spiritual powers in the physical world, but Gandalf is not sure he's strong enough, for his power is new and Sauron has spent ages building his own- and if Sauron had gotten his ring back he would have overpowered even Gandalf.

Thanks for cueing me in about Galadriel's army in the movies. The movie deviations from the novel just add to my persistent LOTR confusion and I haven't read that far yet . But it was Galadriel versus Saruman that I was thinking of, not Sauron, directly because of the movies and the way the two armies were pitted against each other.

As for the ring, it is my understanding that they were basically preservation machines, a way of giving permanence to something that should have been changing naturally as it evolved in Time. I would not consider that preservation to be Galadriel's magic. Rather, I thought Galadriel's magic was in shaping nature itself (plants, trees) into Lothlorien, something she logically could have learned from Yavanna, and the ring's only purpose was to preserve her design as an unnatural form of immortality. Which, in keeping with your thought, the design of Lothlorien was sustained by her ring, and not by Galadriel. Shaping/twisting nature is not the same thing as creating/destroying nature that she could have still been a student of magic, and hence, a Maiar.

As for destroying or killing Sauron, I also think it's impossible, but given that he poured so much of his power into the Ring, when it was destroyed Sauron became so weak he couldn't even manifest anymore- he rose up as a great evil spirit in the sky, but then couldn't even hold himself together and a wind scattered him into practically nothing. He can't grow again and will never take shape again, as good as destroyed.

I would argue against that idea that Sauron can't grow again. The ring was thrown into a volcano. I'm not entirely certain it was destroyed. However, there is no physical body that can retrieve the ring from lava, except maybe a Balrog if they can find something that tiny in an ocean of lava. And Sauron's spiritual manifestation would not be able to retrieve the ring from lava either, so that would effectively neutralize his own power there. But I don't think immortals are so easily eliminated. What I would agree to is that whatever Sauron put into the ring of himself can't be rebirthed until that ring is destroyed... and if the ring was never destroyed, then the spiritual malice that it was made from can never be rebirthed into a reincarnated form of an immortal Sauron. The ring is like a body that can't be destroyed, a permanence rather than an immortality, becoming a prison for the immortal who poured his own spirit into it rather than a power. And I would argue that Sauron does not become more powerful when he has the ring to use, just full power, all of himself present and usable, rather than half of himself there and half of himself... mm... absent-minded. And it would be quite possible that Sauron cannot be rebirthed as an immortal if he's missing some vital components that he might have put into a lost ring, and whatever was flesh and bone would become dust in Time. But how long did the Black Riders endure without a physical body because of a ring that imprisoned them spiritually? And they were humans, not even immortals.

[Radhruin_EU]

I would argue against that idea that Sauron can't grow again. The ring was thrown into a volcano. I'm not entirely certain it was destroyed.

It's made abundantly clear in the book that it was destroyed because that's what causes Sauron's downfall (and the accompanying collapse of Barad-dur, and Mount Doom blowing its top). Barad-dur's foundations had been made with the power of the Ring and could not be destroyed unless it was unmade. The Ring goes into the fiery chasm and Barad-dur promptly collapses. and we see Sauron's shadowy form rise from the ruin and then dissolve into nothing. Bit of a hint there.

We'd also been told earlier that Sauron could never rise again once the Ring was destroyed.

"If it is destroyed, then he will fall; and his fall will be so low that none can foresee
his arising ever again. For he will lose the best part of the strength that was native
to him in his beginning, and all that was made or begun with that power will crumble,
and he will be maimed for ever, becoming a mere spirit of malice that gnaws itself in
the shadows, but cannot again grow or take shape. And so a great evil of this world
will be removed."

- 'The Last Debate', RotK

So in other words Sauron is toast, he can't stage a comeback because there's so little left of him.

[Elebraen]

It's made abundantly clear in the book that it was destroyed because that's what causes Sauron's downfall (and the accompanying collapse of Barad-dur, and Mount Doom blowing its top). Barad-dur's foundations had been made with the power of the Ring and could not be destroyed unless it was unmade. The Ring goes into the fiery chasm and Barad-dur promptly collapses. and we see Sauron's shadowy form rise from the ruin and then dissolve into nothing. Bit of a hint there.

We'd also been told earlier that Sauron could never rise again once the Ring was destroyed.

"If it is destroyed, then he will fall; and his fall will be so low that none can foresee
his arising ever again. For he will lose the best part of the strength that was native
to him in his beginning, and all that was made or begun with that power will crumble,
and he will be maimed for ever, becoming a mere spirit of malice that gnaws itself in
the shadows, but cannot again grow or take shape. And so a great evil of this world
will be removed."

- 'The Last Debate', RotK

So in other words Sauron is toast, he can't stage a comeback because there's so little left of him.

Right. The book is not a bible to me. It was only one man's perception, interpretation and illustration of something that exists, and exists to more than one person that there can be different points of view on the same realm of existence. There is a science underneath the fiction that I'm trying to get to. There are always seeds of truth ingrained in even the most fantastical fiction that the story is able to hold together as a solid reality for so many different people. That quoted paragraph should be properly preceded with "We surmise that... If it is destroyed..." the rest will follow. Watch Sauron rise from the ruin and dissolve into nothing... like steam rising from a boiling pot? Which later condenses when it cools and falls back to earth as rain? My eyes are only one of my six senses, and one of the least reliable judges of them.

I'll tell you something about immortals... they normally have scheduled life refreshments to replace their damaged or worn out physical bodies about every eighty to one hundred years if not sooner. The transfer process takes about two weeks to two months depending on how old the immortal is. Gandalf's death and return from Moria was a great example of that. The hobbits in the Barrows was another good example of that preservation of their Shire childhoods, but reborn into their adult life refreshment bodies that they ran around naked in the Barrows for awhile. Death and rebirth was a glaringly obvious theme in that Barrow-downs chapter. Tolkien is practically showing you the process. Their spirit and memories remain intact for as long as they've lived that they are considered immortals, thousands of years old, but with a newly replaced twenty year old young adult body as needed, childhood growth only needing to be done once, and they go right back to work on their centuries long construction projects without missing a beat. You only die once... and then you're immortal. "What I chiefly need is courage," Frodo says to Gildor Inglorion. You only die once... and what if you're not immortal?

And to a mortal human observer, how would he know the difference? He's dead in about eighty years when his body dies and his own spirit goes back to the source, never an integral part of the living foundation structure that must remain intact that he never returns. The human's role is more like a migrant worker that's been hired on for a temporary construction/destruction job. What spirit comes back from the same source as a newly born human does not have personal memories that he can pick up where he left off with his old life and relationships. He just has accumulated collective source memories that humans can advance so quickly beyond a caveman intelligence, all collective source roads already paved for them that they just have to travel down the paved roads to make them into their own personal memories. The mortal has to relearn everything given the current environment to have applicable skill sets that his twenty year childhood is repeated, but the wealth of variety and adaptability is their strategic strength. Nothing stays the same spiritually with a mortal that you can't judge his present life by the history of his name, John, John Jr., John III, even if his physical body and real estate inheritance looks exactly the same from one generation to the next. You can judge an immortal by the history of his name though. Immortals cannot ever escape from their own histories. They can only construct a better balance for their life with their planned futures that Karma is more important to the immortals, not spiritual salvation.

If Sauron was human... aka mortal... then Sauron died and was utterly destroyed, with no ability to reconstitute that former life, just like any other evil human who comes and goes within a hundred year span of Time, and your book given point of view stands.

If Sauron is elven... aka immortal... you can expect a comeback even if he's laying low and pretending to be dead. Why? Because he was created by the Creator to be an integral part of the living foundation structure, his spirit and memories forever intact in Time, like bone marrow within a structural beam that forever regenerates for the intrinsic value of its own life vibrancy for as long as the created universe remains, even if he's currently disembodied and his personal real estate and financial holdings have been destroyed. Many repetitively expected things, like standard life refreshments for immortals, were automated. And because Sauron wasn't born evil, he was able to survive his own Barrow-downs childhood judgment, the only time he would have been mortal and easily removed from the foundation structure of the universe before becoming an installed immortal. His history is like a warped board with an overbalance of evil Karma that he is naturally going to lean that way in his own rebirth. And losing a war isn't going to fix that.

I'm going to requote you. "Barad-dur's foundations were made with the Ring." So were Lothlorien's. However, Sauron and Galadriel's personal foundations were not made with the Ring. Therefore, destroying their rings would not destroy them. Just their Ring preserved real estate.

[Boraxxe]

Galadriel was elven. Not Maiar in any way.

Sauron, the Balrog, Gandalf and Saruman and the other Wizards; all Maiar.

Elrond was Half-Elven. That is: half human and half elf and just a touch Maiar (thru his relationship to his G-grandmother Luthien who was half-Maiar).

Elrond, Galadriel and Gandalf possessed Great Rings that were crafted by an elf. They did not haver any intrinsic Maiar "magic". They had whatever power those rings gave them, but it did not have anything to do with Maiar or Valar.

It didn't matter how much or how long Galadriel studied with anyone. She only had the magic that Elves have and what she wielded thru the ring.
She did get much wisdom from Yavanna, but not "power".

The only real challenger to Sauron (in my opinion) would have been Gandalf if he yielded to the temptation to use the Great Ring.
He feared that he would eventually become self-possessed... deluded into thinking that all things must be done according to his wisdom. The ring would have given him much power to dominate the will of others. He feared that he would have been worse that Sauron because he would want to do "good" things. And he rightly judged himself not capable of knowing (without any doubt) what was "good" for everyone.

[Radhruin_EU]

Right. The book is not a bible to me.

Regardless, it's canonical. It doesn't matter how you look at it, we can see the consequences of the Ring's destruction in the collapse of Barad-dur and what happens to Sauron's shadowy form (and how the Three Rings subsequently lost their power, as foreseen) and we have a clear steer from what Gandalf had said earlier about how we should interpret all of that. On top of that, we know from Tolkien's letters that he considered that to be the last time such a demonic power was incarnate in Middle-earth. It's clearly meant to be final and there's no support anywhere for what you're saying.

Sauron's shadowy form being seen to dissolve contrasts sharply with what had happened after the Downfall of Numenor, when he rose from the sea as a terrible dark shadow and made his way back to Barad-dur in that form - showing that he was effectively indestructible as long as the Ring existed; he could be hurt and reduced for a time but would always come back. The idea of someone putting some or all of their soul into a physical object so that they can't be slain as long as it exists has been around a long time, going back to ancient myths, so the imaginative basis of this is well established.

Maimed and with his power all but gone, all that would be left of Sauron would be an evil spirit who could lurk in the dark and whisper in the ears of anyone who wanted to listen, but he wouldn't be able to do anything himself nor empower anyone directly. If you wanted a story hook, there's nothing to say that he couldn't still share dark secrets with sorcerers who communed with him, but that'd put him in the traditional role of evil spirits of that sort.

[Hastran]

Right. The book is not a bible to me. It was only one man's perception, interpretation and illustration of something that exists, and exists to more than one person that there can be different points of view on the same realm of existence.

One mans perception? He created the history, the story, the science...everything that is in the Hobbit, LotRs, Silmarillion etc. is how one man decided it would be. It exists because he made it so. You can have an opinion on how you would have "liked" things to be, but thinking that should have any value when compared to Tolkien's stated mythology is the height of hubris.

You want to have a place where your view of how thing work is how it really is? Then you need to write your own creation.

[DavidmeetHal]

It’s more than one man’s perception. It’s THE MAN’S perception. The top dog. Big cheese. Numero uno.

[Elebraen]

One mans perception? He created the history, the story, the science...everything that is in the Hobbit, LotRs, Silmarillion etc. is how one man decided it would be. It exists because he made it so. You can have an opinion on how you would have "liked" things to be, but thinking that should have any value when compared to Tolkien's stated mythology is the height of hubris.

You want to have a place where your view of how thing work is how it really is? Then you need to write your own creation.

Canonical. I'll accept that. One person writes a book about Florida, calls it a creation of his own imagination, and that's the only opinion that's valid about a place called Florida because you think the author was able to pull all of that information out of his own behind to share it with you? And you think nobody else has ever been to Florida to be able to gainsay him?

For you, so be it. Your own thoughts on the matter end with a book that somebody else wrote to tell you exactly what to think. A paved road. Make it your own. You won't be alone.

But that book doesn't satisfy me. Some of his thoughts jar me out of my own suspended disbelief while I'm reading and they always have. I can accept trees eating hobbits, especially when given a history of hobbits burning trees. That makes sense. Tit for tat. Balance restored. I cannot accept the quick and easy death of an immortal Maia by virtue of the destruction of a ring machine that he created, even if it does make an easy grand finale ending to a long drawn out story that you would like to be done with already. The author mortalized an immortal if I am to believe that Sauron is dead, never to return, which as the creator of his own fiction, he can do that, but that's where he crosses the line into being pure imagination to me in his stated mythology. Wishful thinking. And I don't buy it and I don't care that he wrote it to become his own canon, as though the author's not capable of writing a bunch of BS alongside of some juicy pieces of universal truthfulness. I naturally reject it in response and replace it with something that makes logical sense to me, something solid in the mechanics of how a permanent entrapment of an immortal could be done using the ring he created to try to stay within the author's given story plotline that Sauron, the immortal and most powerful Maia that the entire realm has to stand united against to be able to defeat him, is never to return because his ring of power was thrown into an active volcano. I have to pave my own road there to know what to think of it, and I'll probably be alone on that road. And I accept that.

[Radhruin_EU]

Canonical. I'll accept that. One person writes a book about Florida, calls it a creation of his own imagination, and that's the only opinion that's valid about a place called Florida because you think the author was able to pull all of that information out of his own behind to share it with you? And you think nobody else has ever been to Florida to be able to gainsay him?

For you, so be it. Your own thoughts on the matter end with a book that somebody else wrote to tell you exactly what to think. A paved road. Make it your own. You won't be alone.

But that book doesn't satisfy me. Some of his thoughts jar me out of my own suspended disbelief while I'm reading and they always have. I can accept trees eating hobbits, especially when given a history of hobbits burning trees. That makes sense. Tit for tat. Balance restored. I cannot accept the quick and easy death of an immortal Maia by virtue of the destruction of a ring machine that he created, even if it does make an easy grand finale ending to a long drawn out story that you would like to be done with already. The author mortalized an immortal if I am to believe that Sauron is dead, never to return, which as the creator of his own fiction, he can do that, but that's where he crosses the line into being pure imagination to me in his stated mythology. Wishful thinking. And I don't buy it and I don't care that he wrote it to become his own canon, as though the author's not capable of writing a bunch of BS alongside of some juicy pieces of universal truthfulness. I naturally reject it in response and replace it with something that makes logical sense to me, something solid in the mechanics of how a permanent entrapment of an immortal could be done using the ring he created to try to stay within the author's given story plotline that Sauron, the immortal and most powerful Maia that the entire realm has to stand united against to be able to defeat him, is never to return because his ring of power was thrown into an active volcano. I have to pave my own road there to know what to think of it, and I'll probably be alone on that road. And I accept that.

Sauron doesn't stop being immortal, he's maimed. So grievously hurt by the psychic shock of the loss of the Ring that he could never recover from it, nor take physical shape again. It'd previously been established that some wounds were so grievous even to a Maia that they were permanent, as if they'd also wounded their spirit: the seven great wounds Morgoth suffered at Fingolfin's hands, one of which left him permanently lame; Sauron losing his 'fair' form in the Downfall of Numenor and only being able to appear in a terrible form after that; and Sauron's Black Hand being missing a finger, the one which Isildur had cut off to take the Ring.

Sauron had no sooner had his psyche maimed by the loss of the Ring than Barad-dûr collapsed around him, crushing him under countless tons of rubble and twisted iron. Either way, that's got to hurt

[Heno08]

Canonical. I'll accept that. One person writes a book about Florida, calls it a creation of his own imagination, and that's the only opinion that's valid about a place called Florida because you think the author was able to pull all of that information out of his own behind to share it with you? And you think nobody else has ever been to Florida to be able to gainsay him?

A ridiculous comparison. Florida exists. Middle Earth does not.

but that's where he crosses the line into being pure imagination

Sorry but it is all pure imagination. Get your head sorted out.

Please explain how, in a world of ´magic’ that results solely from one man’s imagination, what you have said anymore logical than what has been written in book?

Paint yourself as a ‘free spirit’ all you want. At least others here seem to have a better grasp on what is logical and what is fantasy.

[Bauglin]

I cannot accept the quick and easy death of an immortal Maia by virtue of the destruction of a ring machine that he created, even if it does make an easy grand finale ending to a long drawn out story that you would like to be done with already.

1) I'm not sure that Frodo or the rest of the Fellowship would have described Sauron's downfall as "quick and easy." (I say "downfall," because, as has been repeated here a few times, Sauron did not die.)

2) If you didn't like The Lord of the Rings, if it was too long and tedious for you, then by all means, just say so. There's no shame in it. In fact, when friends ask if they should read LotR, I recommend reading The Hobbit first, and, if they enjoyed the book, proceed to The Fellowship of the Ring.

3) You always have the option of writing your own works that capture your imagination better and make more logical sense to you.

[TesalionLortus]

Wishful thinking. And I don't buy it and I don't care that he wrote it to become his own canon

I have to pave my own road there to know what to think of it, and I'll probably be alone on that road. And I accept that.

Well... this thread has turned into something weird, mainly because you seem to ignore the very thing that others had already pointed out above - that Sauron isn't really 'dead' technically, which seemed to be an original issue raised, that you couldn't buy into a dead immortal.

Also, in case your *real* issue is with Sauron's power being undone by the ring alone because that's unbelievable or too dumb on Sauron's part or something... well, I do get something similar in some other stories and tv shows when they're written badly but hey, this is Tolkien, so no one ever expected THAT kind of structural realism... from a guy who described it as a mythological romance his country never had (or something like that, don't remember the exact comparison). Like, all these old stories, legends and mythologies Tolkien was inspired by are even less realistic according to such standards... and sometimes things are merely symbolical to make a point. Either way, the story isn't THAT illogical as you make it out to be. I think Tolkien found a good balance between that romantic, legendary style filled with various literally themes (which may become more important than the story threads that contain them) AND actual, consequential world-building filled with believable characterization and events that don't really end up in derailed trainwreck of whack writing.

But if it makes you feel any better you could say what remains of Sauron is additionally held back by the powers from the West so even if he regained some of the power back he wouldn't be able to return, and unlike the direct confrontation which would create lots of chaos (think War of Wrath) and actual messy involvement from the Valars in Middle-earth (which is controversial to begin with) keeping Sauron's spirit at bay once he lost most of his power, dooming him to shadowy sphere forever until the end of days... is basically like a gentle puff from Manwe once in a year maybe, and that's something that requires zero effort and doesn't really involve Valars in anyone's affairs, so why wouldn't he. There is also a canon precedent for this: with the cloud left after Saruman that was scattered by the wind from the West. Gosh, I wonder how will they portray that in LOTRO, perhaps some good animations for it.

Either way, about the ring issue - without going into the "I respect Tolkien's canon so I accept it" territory or "I accept that it was important part of his themes in his books so I accept some of the less logical mechanisms behind the decisions made" I never really had problem with that story angle, to be honest. Perhaps only a slight disappointment that we got only so little info about the scope of Sauron's design with the rings and the One, how did that work exactly, what were the military/infrastructural objectives behind this on the map of Middle-earth, what were Sauron's hopes and plans, why would he put so much of himself into the One and make himself reliable on its power as much. There are hints and pieces, we can actually piece together some of the answer and let fantasy unfold, but yeah, actual info is sparse. Personally, I always thought it was kind of a risky sacrificial gambit that not all bad guys would have the guts to pull off, promising bigger gains and ultimate control over individual pawns placed in strategic sectors that not even Morgoth was able to achieve (so not just some cheap dumb hubris by Sauron). At the same time perhaps protection also - so no one would be able to use the ring as efficiently as Sauron nor use it to control other rings even if they had it in the palm of their hands and were very powerful. Actually, I was very hopeful the Amazon series would be able to delve into all that in more detail including Sauron's character and make compelling sense out of it but... well, I'll just leave it without a comment because even my confidence they'll at least manage to focus ENOUGH on Sauron has been shattered and is at 0,9% right now... and making him a 'mystery character' or turning into an amnesiac wizard befriending hobbitses as some kind of cheap sense of forced irony (if that's even him - my bet is yes) are not exactly helping...

[Wolfhelm]

Canonical. I'll accept that. One person writes a book about Florida, calls it a creation of his own imagination, and that's the only opinion that's valid about a place called Florida because you think the author was able to pull all of that information out of his own behind to share it with you? And you think nobody else has ever been to Florida to be able to gainsay him?

For you, so be it. Your own thoughts on the matter end with a book that somebody else wrote to tell you exactly what to think. A paved road. Make it your own. You won't be alone.

But that book doesn't satisfy me. Some of his thoughts jar me out of my own suspended disbelief while I'm reading and they always have. I can accept trees eating hobbits, especially when given a history of hobbits burning trees. That makes sense. Tit for tat. Balance restored. I cannot accept the quick and easy death of an immortal Maia by virtue of the destruction of a ring machine that he created, even if it does make an easy grand finale ending to a long drawn out story that you would like to be done with already. The author mortalized an immortal if I am to believe that Sauron is dead, never to return, which as the creator of his own fiction, he can do that, but that's where he crosses the line into being pure imagination to me in his stated mythology. Wishful thinking. And I don't buy it and I don't care that he wrote it to become his own canon, as though the author's not capable of writing a bunch of BS alongside of some juicy pieces of universal truthfulness. I naturally reject it in response and replace it with something that makes logical sense to me, something solid in the mechanics of how a permanent entrapment of an immortal could be done using the ring he created to try to stay within the author's given story plotline that Sauron, the immortal and most powerful Maia that the entire realm has to stand united against to be able to defeat him, is never to return because his ring of power was thrown into an active volcano. I have to pave my own road there to know what to think of it, and I'll probably be alone on that road. And I accept that.

Tolkien invented Sauron, so clearly he has the right to decide the how and why of his downfall. We don't get a vote, it's Tolkien's story, and he can end it anyway he likes. Once the Return of the King was published in 1955, Sauron's fate was set in stone, millions of people have read it that way, and it will never change.

[Radhruin_EU]

Re why Sauron can't come back, there's the question of what the 'rules' appear to be for a Maia to take physical form. Not that Tolkien is consistent about this, of course, so this is just generalities rather than anything hard and fast:

- it presumably takes considerable effort for them to do that from scratch and it's easier for them to do if they have help

- their bodies are real and living and have to be maintained; normally they need to breathe, eat and drink. Balrogs are an odd one out because their form is so extreme but they're fire-spirits by nature, so maybe that's a trick only they can do. Embodied Maiar can apparently 'sleep' for huge spans of time if they need to hide out somewhere, presumably like some sort of suspended animation thing.

- if hurt, embodied Maiar can heal themselves via their power (making them very hard to kill) but they can be either worn down in battle or slain immediately by extreme trauma (falling off a mountain and drowning being proven examples). Luthien was able to threaten Sauron with forcibly stripping him of his body and that prospect was evidently horrid enough to force Sauron to yield. (On the implied basis that Maia or no, that would hurt like hell and do him lasting damage and having to go back to Morgoth 'naked' would be super-embarrassing; Luthien tells him that Morgoth would scorn and laugh at him forever). If a Maia loses their power, they won't be able to do anything about physical injuries and can be slain just like anybody else (e.g. Saruman having his throat cut by Wormtongue)

- Maiar can throw off their physical form entirely but may be loath to do this or may not be able to do it instantly without suffering consequences

- especially traumatic injuries can hurt their spirit, so that the hurts will appear on any physical form they take later or they can be limited in what form they can then take (e.g. Sauron's lost 'fair' form and missing ring-finger, Morgoth's maimed foot) - Tolkien uses this for symbolic value, it's not consistent

- the violent death of their physical form hurts them and leaves them traumatised so that they can't create another for a time (possibly a long, long time) or possibly not be able to at all ever again. Thus how Gandalf could vanquish the Balrog of Moria, apparently permanently. And how Gandalf was so beat up after that that his body failed him, and he was only able to come back himself because some higher power intervened. The bad guys can't rely on high-powered help like that, as Morgoth's no longer around; Tolkien made passing mention of lesser Maiar who took Orc-like forms to command armies in Morgoth's time and who if slain would later return; those guys presumably got obliterated in the War of Wrath, like nearly all the Balrogs did, and then couldn't come back. Sauron had been able to come back twice already because the Ring was still around, but with it gone and most of his original power with it he's had it.

- if they're in one form for a long time they become habituated to it and may become 'stuck' in that form, unwilling or unable to leave it. The loss of that form is then even more traumatic.

[LagunaD2]

Sauron was a Maia (ranks lower than a Vala but higher than a non-magical people)

Being a Vala is a career choice, not a race or rank of power.

[Radhruin_EU]

Being a Vala is a career choice, not a race or rank of power.

It kind of is, each Vala represented some aspect of Iluvatar's thought spun off as beings intended to govern the world on his behalf (he's outside time and space and can't manifest himself directly within his own creation because he's too big to fit, metaphysically speaking, so he needs beings who exist within time to keep things going). So they're what you might call the god-tier Ainur (standing in place of an actual pantheon), and then next down you get the Maiar as super-powered 'angelic' spirit-beings.