The Fall of 👁️Sauron (and Sauron in melee combat)

[Radaghast]

I don't usually care for "What If" questions. To me, the book is good enough for me, warts and all. In my view, any warts that might exist are excusable considering The Lord of the Rings was not a book that Tolkien ever set out to write of his own volition, but rather to fill a demand.

But, anyway, one scenario occurred to me that I wondered if it might not be a more interesting outcome than what's in the book, namely how Sauron falls. Considering how Sauron fought hand to hand against Gil-galad and Elendil and perished that way, what if Sauron fell the same way in the War of the Ring? Only this time there is no physical return.

The more I think about it, the more sort of anticlimactic Sauron's defeat seems to me. Not the scene in Mount Doom, of course. More the scene at the Morannon where, Sauron's forces and allies suddenly all fall apart, except for some resistance from the human contingent. It's just all over maybe a tad too quickly. I just wonder if the ending couldn't have been fraught with more tension. What if, instead of the destruction of the Ring meaning the end of Sauron, it merely prevented him from reincarnating? Then, just as in the Second Age, he would have emerged from Barad-dûr to try to make a stand, only to finally be physically slain in combat after a lengthy battle. Or maybe Aragorn challenges him to step forth as he did earlier (and as Fingolfin challenges Morgoth in the First Age). There would be at least two problems with this scenario, of course.

One is that the guys that killed Sauron also perished, and they were the best of the best of the Second Age, when both Men and Elves were mightier. So, who then would fight Sauron? Gandalf would be presumably would be forbidden. That would leave Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli and probably others, such as Prince Imrahil; I think you'd need a lot of warm bodies to oppose Sauron. In this scenario, I'd imagine Tolkien would feel many would die at Sauron's hand, and that might not go well with his publishers or his audience.

The other problem is that Tolkien didn't really write many lengthy battle scenes. You could probably count on one hand the ones he describes in any detail and left it to the reader to supply their own blow-by-blow. Only a couple come to my mind: the epic battle between Fingolfin and Morgoth and the almost as epic Huan vs. Sauron contest. But even these don't boast a wealth of detail. The Lord of the Rings itself contains very little; all I can think of are the times Sam and Gollum fight. And the description of Sauron v. Gil-galad and Elendil is scant as heck. Therefore, it might be hard to envision how Tolkien would describe such a combat.

But I think anyone would admit Sauron emerging from his dark tower to enter the fray would probably make for a more interesting scene and I think Tolkien could have pulled it off if he wanted to, and if it even occurred to him. If Aragorn and co. are not enough, there are also the Eagles. Also, frankly, the book needed more Sauron. Isn't it named after him?

Anyway, I'm not saying I'm right here — and I still think the book is fine as is. I'm just basically thinking out loud, speculating if Tolkien maybe missed a truly grand opportunity.

 

[Olorgando]

JRRT had personally witnessed and taken part in one of the most horrific mass slaughters in the history of warfare, the Battle of the Somme starting on 01 July 1916. His need to describe in detail what he had once called "the animal horror of the trenches" was probably close to zero. My guess is that he would have considered any clamor for more gory details as morbid, at best.

 

[Radaghast]

Yeah, not a fan of gore myself and shy away from details involving blood and guts. I'm thinking more along Fingolfin vs. Morgoth.

 

[Erestor Arcamen]

Apparently the troll that Aragorn fought at the end of ROTK was originally supposed to be Sauron. While I hate the lighthouse in the movies, I'm glad he didn't do this either. But I agree, I wish that Sauron had more of an appearance in the book. Other than showing up in the Palantir, he really never showed up at all really.

Here's the scene:

 

[Radaghast]

I wanted to mention that and I'm surprised it was even an idea considering Sauron is apparently just a giant eyeball in the films.

 

[Aldarion]

JRRT had personally witnessed and taken part in one of the most horrific mass slaughters in the history of warfare, the Battle of the Somme starting on 01 July 1916. His need to describe in detail what he had once called "the animal horror of the trenches" was probably close to zero. My guess is that he would have considered any clamor for more gory details as morbid, at best.

Except he did describe precisely that. Marshes of the Dead IIRC were inspired directly by his experiences on the Western Front - up to the detail of waterlogged ground preserving corpses.

I believe that Sauron did not really appear in person for the same reason why we only got second-hand accounts of the events at Moria: mystery and intrigue increase immersion. Humans lack knowledge of many things, so hiding things from the reader actually makes the world more immersive.

 

[Olorgando]

Except he did describe precisely that. Marshes of the Dead IIRC were inspired directly by his experiences on the Western Front - up to the detail of waterlogged ground preserving corpses.

The aftermath of mass slaughter, yes - but he only had a couple of sentences to spare for that.
I'm thinking more of the crassest difference between films and books, especially for TH: the amount of space devoted to battle descriptions. That is enormously expanded in the films, especially in TH III "The Battle of the Five Armies". It's covered in perhaps 9 pages in the book, but how much running time is it given in the film? Probably necessary to get the third film up to a "respectable" length, i.e. heavy padding - and the occasion for Weta Digital to go wild!

 

[Aldarion]

The aftermath of mass slaughter, yes - but he only had a couple of sentences to spare for that.
I'm thinking more of the crassest difference between films and books, especially for TH: the amount of space devoted to battle descriptions. That is enormously expanded in the films, especially in TH III "The Battle of the Five Armies". It's covered in perhaps 9 pages in the book, but how much running time is it given in the film? Probably necessary to get the third film up to a "respectable" length, i.e. heavy padding - and the occasion for Weta Digital to go wild!

They screwed up everything by making The Hobbit into a trilogy...

 

[1stvermont]

I don't usually care for "What If" questions. To me, the book is good enough for me, warts and all. In my view, any warts that might exist are excusable considering The Lord of the Rings was not a book that Tolkien ever set out to write of his own volition, but rather to fill a demand.

But, anyway, one scenario occurred to me that I wondered if it might not be a more interesting outcome than what's in the book, namely how Sauron falls. Considering how Sauron fought hand to hand against Gil-galad and Elendil and perished that way, what if Sauron fell the same way in the War of the Ring? Only this time there is no physical return.

The more I think about it, the more sort of anticlimactic Sauron's defeat seems to me. Not the scene in Mount Doom, of course. More the scene at the Morannon where, Sauron's forces and allies suddenly all fall apart, except for some resistance from the human contingent. It's just all over maybe a tad too quickly. I just wonder if the ending couldn't have been fraught with more tension. What if, instead of the destruction of the Ring meaning the end of Sauron, it merely prevented him from reincarnating? Then, just as in the Second Age, he would have emerged from Barad-dûr to try to make a stand, only to finally be physically slain in combat after a lengthy battle. Or maybe Aragorn challenges him to step forth as he did earlier (and as Fingolfin challenges Morgoth in the First Age). There would be at least two problems with this scenario, of course.

One is that the guys that killed Sauron also perished, and they were the best of the best of the Second Age, when both Men and Elves were mightier. So, who then would fight Sauron? Gandalf would be presumably would be forbidden. That would leave Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli and probably others, such as Prince Imrahil; I think you'd need a lot of warm bodies to oppose Sauron. In this scenario, I'd imagine Tolkien would feel many would die at Sauron's hand, and that might not go well with his publishers or his audience.

The other problem is that Tolkien didn't really write many lengthy battle scenes. You could probably count on one hand the ones he describes in any detail and left it to the reader to supply their own blow-by-blow. Only a couple come to my mind: the epic battle between Fingolfin and Morgoth and the almost as epic Huan vs. Sauron contest. But even these don't boast a wealth of detail. The Lord of the Rings itself contains very little; all I can think of are the times Sam and Gollum fight. And the description of Sauron v. Gil-galad and Elendil is scant as heck. Therefore, it might be hard to envision how Tolkien would describe such a combat.

But I think anyone would admit Sauron emerging from his dark tower to enter the fray would probably make for a more interesting scene and I think Tolkien could have pulled it off if he wanted to, and if it even occurred to him. If Aragorn and co. are not enough, there are also the Eagles. Also, frankly, the book needed more Sauron. Isn't it named after him?

Anyway, I'm not saying I'm right here — and I still think the book is fine as is. I'm just basically thinking out loud, speculating if Tolkien maybe missed a truly grand opportunity.

I think tolkien wanted evil to be destroyed not by military might. But courage, self sacrifice and so on. He said during WW2 we are trying to defeat sauron with the ring. So looking for a military answer to evil was not tolkiens way imo.

 

[Boffer Balsashield]

The aftermath of mass slaughter, yes - but he only had a couple of sentences to spare for that.
I'm thinking more of the crassest difference between films and books, especially for TH: the amount of space devoted to battle descriptions. That is enormously expanded in the films, especially in TH III "The Battle of the Five Armies". It's covered in perhaps 9 pages in the book, but how much running time is it given in the film? Probably necessary to get the third film up to a "respectable" length, i.e. heavy padding - and the occasion for Weta Digital to go wild!

And for Legolas to go nuts breaking the laws of physics! Hated that.