How do 👁️Sauron and 🧙Gandalf serve Tolkien's themes and messages?

[Ent]

Huorn is very interested in your perspectives on what Sauron and Gandalf actually represent to Tolkien, and to his work(s).
Huron says no more at this time...just wanting your thinking.
(If you have any questions or need any clarification do ask.)

 

[d4rk3lf]

Gandalf is him, Sauron is his wife.

Joke aside...
What do you mean represent?

 

[ZehnWaters]

Huorn is very interested in your perspectives on what Sauron and Gandalf actually represent to Tolkien, and to his work(s).
Huron says no more at this time...just wanting your thinking.
(If you have any questions or need any clarification do ask.)

Since he considered the Ainur angelic in nature, I'd say Gandalf represents an Angel of God (not an archangel as the Valar are Archangels) and Sauron a fallen angel or devil. I'm not sure there's much more to it than that.

 

[Deimos]

Evil and Good?
Vice and Virtue?
Will to Power (libido dominandi) and Obedience?
Spiritual corruption and spiritual integration?
Black Hat and White Hat?
Injuns and Cavalry?

Gandalf is him, Sauron is his wife.

Joke aside...
What do you mean represent?

Thaaaaaank Youuuuuu

 

[Ent]

What do you mean represent?

Good question.

Every character Tolkien wrote into his works, has an underlying purpose... a 'reason for being'... and a 'representation' of what they are in the 'big scheme of things'.

Every single character..!

And as Tolkien said, he 'labored over every word he wrote'. So even his words, their construction and his syntax have purpose and are intended to represent something larger than what is seen on the surface of the Specacle of his work, the Epic of his work, and the first layer or two of 'deeper things' like the type of kingdoms he's representing based on his own medieval preferences, etc.

So... what do we think, in the depths of Tolkien's depths, his fundamental, root intention is, with the representation he provides us in a Sauron and a Gandalf.

Thanks for the answers given so far, folks. I appreciate it.

 

[Ent]

p.s. - I am not looking for a 'right answer'.
This isn't a 'right and wrong' thing.
I'm just seeking your thoughts.

 

[Deimos]

p.s. - I am not looking for a 'right answer'.
This isn't a 'right and wrong' thing.
I'm just seeking your thoughts.

I'll quibble a bit on that....There is most definitely a "wrong answer" :
Sauron (and Mordor) represented Hitler/Nazi Germany and Gandalf represented, oh Patton, I guess, or maybe "Ike", or Monty, or even Churchill.
(And Gollum was Neville Chamberlain 😉)

 

[Ent]

I'll quibble a bit on that.

Quibble away.
Just please don't stop anyone from sharing whatever their thoughts may be about Tolkien's root intentions.
Even mentioning something is 'wrong' may derail others from responding.

And, for those who would say what is said above, for them it is their 'truth'. The Religion of Opinion knows no bounds... even those placed by the creator of a thing.

To deny them their truth is just to build a wall.
I'd prefer this to be a 'no walls please' question.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

So... what do we think, in the depths of Tolkien's depths, his fundamental, root intention is

Would it be too clichéd to consult the writer himself?

. . . I should like to say something here with reference to the many opinions or guesses I have received or read concerning the motives and meaning of the tale. The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them..

As for any inner meaning or "message", it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical.

Tolkien knew how to "hold the attention" of his readers: the same ways with which storytellers have done so for millennia. Gandalf was introduced as the "wise father-figure" who sets the hero on his quest; Sauron was the Necromancer, a mere device, as Tolkien admitted, to allow Gandalf to leave Bilbo to stand on his own feet.

Of course, both collected more and more attributes, as these things tend naturally to do; as the critic Northrop Frye puts it, "The romancer raises stylized figures which expand into psychological archetypes".

I'm certainly not against speculating about intentions or motives (since we seem to be in the "Halls of Speculation" here 😉) -- merely cautioning against reading in some monumental hidden meanings that may not be there.

However much we might want them.

 

[Deimos]

Quibble away.
Just please don't stop anyone from sharing whatever their thoughts may be about Tolkien's root intentions.
Even mentioning something is 'wrong' may derail others from responding.

And, for those who would say what is said above, for them it is their 'truth'. The Religion of Opinion knows no bounds... even those placed by the creator of a thing.

To deny them their truth is just to build a wall.
I'd prefer this to be a 'no walls please' question.

I just prevented someone from posting exactly that interpretation, which we know Tolkien specifically and emphatically denied.
So now a member [fourm-ite?] who was about to say that has to rethink his opinion and return to the sources before posting.
Better that than posting it and getting shot down publicly (a foregone conclusion), even if we only use rubber bullets...(they still sting).

 

[Ent]

speculating about intentions or motives

A challenge to you... as 'intentions or motives' aren't the point sir SeS.... not at the level of his 'intentions' for his entire work.
Intentions with specific 'representations' are the question.

And though Tolkien said what you said he said... with which all could/should/must agree... he also said much about 'representations', 'motivations', etc. within the subcreation, regarding the characters. Oh, not specifically... but indeed such existed within the work. So to a degree, there is a "Tolkien" answer to the question nonetheless.

Reiterating: I do not speak of Tolkien's intentions for the whole of his work... but his intended 'representations through the characters in view'... a very different thing.

Further the question relates to 'what do YOU (the respondent) think he intended by the representation he sub-created in and through the characters."

I will change the Topic Title to be more clear on this point.
Perhaps there will be other responses. Perhaps not.

(p.s. - I DO know how astronomically unbelievable it is Huorn would purposely ask a question with but speculative available responses. But there is a reason for it.)

 

[Glorfindel Goldtress]

Overall thoughts on the Ainur: I think they were Tolkien's Middle-Earthian version of angels. The Valar were a specific kind that Tolkien decided took part in Creation with Eru (who is obviously God). The Maiar are another class of angels, of which Gandalf and Sauron are members. Now, Melkor/Morgoth is most likely Tolkien's Satan, and Sauron & Saruman both represent Satan in some aspects (Evil and Angel of Light -> Darkness, if you will). Specifically about Gandalf, there is a bit of a portrayal of a Christ-type figure with his death and resurrection. Tolkien tried to avoid allegory in his works, but he did not deny that his experiences/values shaped his writings. Just my $0.02

 

[Radaghast]

They don't represent anything to me other than good and evil. Doesn't the idea of their representing anything suggestive of allegory, which Tolkien professed to dislike?

 

[Glorfindel Goldtress]

Doesn't the idea of their representing anything suggestive of allegory, which Tolkien professed to dislike?

You are correct on his not liking allegory, but as I pointed out above, Tolkien did say his work was certainly inspired by his experience. He allowed readers to make their own interpretations of his work as he didn't want one specific idea to be the only that was correct. However, it is undeniable that Tolkien's worldview very much shaped his works, which we can be grateful for as that adds so much depth to what is not an allegory per se.

 

[Ent]

They don't represent anything to me other than good and evil. Doesn't the idea of their representing anything suggestive of allegory, which Tolkien professed to dislike?

Yes he professed to dislike it. But he also said it was inevitable in any work of fantasy.
There's a lot more to Tolkien's thoughts on 'allegory' than the one reference most folk want to jump to regarding whether it exists in his works or not.

That said, I'm thankful for all the responses coming in.

 

[Server Room Gremlin]

It looks to me that what Tolkien didn't like was 'one-to-one' representations, where an entity in the story directly represents a specific concept or entity in some aspect of the real world (or in something intangible like ideology). For a very obvious example, think of The Pilgrim's Progress, where each character is named for what they are supposed to represent.
Many-to-one or one-to-many relationships, on the other hand, will always exist in a storyteller's tales, as they cannot create in a void. The storyteller draws subconscious (and conscious/purposeful) influence from a variety of sources, and these get taken apart into larger or smaller elements (like molecules, more recognisable, or like atoms, too 'divorced' to tell) and finally put back together into a variety of new things.


I haven't thought that much about Gandalf (he's a bit hard to pin down for me), but here is my interpretation of what happened with Sauron:

Sauron looks like a cautionary tale to me. At first, he is someone presumably very inventive (as a Maia of Aulë), who loves beauty and order. He also values efficiency. He is awed by the sheer power of Melkor, who does whatever he wants with total disregard for the other Valar, as they cannot really contain or restrict him easily. If Sauron had such power, it would allow him to be even more effective in bringing his designs into reality. Kind of like the 'dark side' in Star Wars, it would make everything quick and easy. Therefore, he decides to join Melkor and learn from him. Though I don't think the motive was just for power gain alone. Sauron might have hero-worshipped Melkor somewhat, and actually looked up to him. Ironically, if someone is obsessed with order and perfection, they can end up feeling restricted by their own rules and standards. Someone who has the 'courage' to break the rules and not care about boundaries may attract their admiration.
Later on of course, Sauron decides to 'improve' upon Melkor by not expending his power haphazardly and needlessly weakening himself. Instead, he puts all his eggs into one basket by creating the One Ring. With this instrument he is at near peak effectiveness when it comes to dominating the world to match his sense of order. But with all his focus and power directed into this one goal, Sauron now has tunnel-vision and a one-track mind, and he has lost his wider range of inventiveness and even his appreciation for beauty (Mordor is a pretty awful-looking place). He now cannot understand anyone with a different mindset than his own, which means he doesn't realise there is a plan to destroy the Ring until almost the very end. He used to be able to do this, given that he got along well enough with Melkor (and he was an able manipulator in the Second Age).
Basically, Sauron, in his quest to find himself, lost himself. He wanted to use his talents and abilities to their fullest extent, and in the end chose the path that would end with him losing them all. Though it is not a bad thing to want to reach your full potential, you should do it mindfully, and not 'at all costs'. Your freedom ends where the freedom of others begins.

 

[Olorgando]

It looks to me that what Tolkien didn't like was 'one-to-one' representations, where an entity in the story directly represents a specific concept or entity in some aspect of the real world (or in something intangible like ideology). For a very obvious example, think of The Pilgrim's Progress, where each character is named for what they are supposed to represent.

Strict allegory requires such a one-to-one correspondence, as Tom Shippey points out in his "The Road to Middle-earth" (3rd edition 2003). He makes the point most forcefully in quoting from JRRT's landmark 1936 British Academy lecture "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics" the "little story of the man and the tower" (pp 46-47 of Shippey's book). But here, JRRT was making a point in an argument. I would concur that he disliked it for longer stories, as perhaps in The Pilgrim's Progress (which I can't judge, not having read it). His shorter story "Leaf by Niggle" seems to be strongly allegorical. Perhaps one could say that JRRT approved of strict allegory in restricted uses. He disliked sloppy allegory, and any continued allegory being used in a longer work.