|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aruman
Rivendell
Oct 11 2012, 12:54pm
Post #1 of 39
(2040 views)
Shortcut
|
|
A so called "inconsistency"
|
Can't Post
|
|
OK so you've probably already heard or thought about the whole "Why does the Mouth of Sauron use Sauron's name when Aragorn said Sauron doesn't permit his name to be spoken?" qualm. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see this as being much of a problem.
Christopher Tolkien explained it by saying that maybe Aragorn's info was out of date. If I could speak to Mr. Tolkien (Christopher), part of me would want to thank him for an interesting possible explanation, but part of me would want to yell at him for seeming to explain away a mistake that his dad didn't even commit. The fact that he felt the need to explain it in this manner seems to imply that a mistake was made, either by Tolkien or Aragorn. I don't believe there was one.
How's this possibility folks:
Sauron generally DID NOT permit his name to be spoken. There were exceptions- one of his "top dawgs" the Mouth of Sauron was able to use the name in dealing with the Captains of the West.
Aragorn's statements at the beginning of TTT could have meant: "Sauron wouldn't have an 'S' on any of the gear of his servants, b/c he generally forbids the use of the name," rather than, "No, under no circumstances whatsoever would Sauron ever allow his name to be spoken."
In the movies Elrond, Denethor, Haldir, Galadriel, and Celeborn stink.
(This post was edited by aruman on Oct 11 2012, 12:55pm)
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
Oct 11 2012, 4:28pm
Post #2 of 39
(1475 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Your conclusion is what I've always thought myself.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I don't think low-lifes like orcs were allowed to use his name, and Mordor was not festooned with billboards with his portrait and name, but I'm sure the upper circle used it as needed. I would guess that to his face they'd say "Your Majesty" or the equivalent, but used his name behind his back, when not referring to him as "The Boss."
There are other examples. The orcs refer to the Chief Nazgul as "Number One," not by his name, and Saruman's people in Isengard call him Sharkey, a nickname. Lotho requires people to call him The Chief, not even Mr Sackville-Baggins.
Given all the use of titles in place of first names, I suppose the hobbits were lucky they were allowed to call their wizard "Gandalf" and not "Oh Great Wizard."
|
|
|
aruman
Rivendell
Oct 11 2012, 6:04pm
Post #3 of 39
(1386 views)
Shortcut
|
Glad to know I'm not the only one who feels this way...
I always thought it was kind of neat how Sauron wouldn't permit his name to be spoken...makes him seem more like a "Dark Lord" and less like a 2-bit criminal...and as you mentioned most of the "villains" used aliases in the story.
In the movies Elrond, Denethor, Haldir, Galadriel, and Celeborn stink.
|
|
|
squire
Half-elven
Oct 11 2012, 6:41pm
Post #4 of 39
(1458 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Inconsistency is as inconsistency does
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
‘S is for Sauron,’ said Gimli. ‘That is easy to read.’
‘Nay!’ said Legolas. ‘Sauron does not use the Elf-runes.’
‘Neither does he use his right name, nor permit it to be spelt or spoken,’ said Aragorn. (LotR III.1)
Aragorn's statement is pretty definitive. There's no hint of "generally" about it, or any suggestion that he is only talking about what mere orcs are allowed to say or write.
On the other hand, as you and others have pointed out, the Mouth of Sauron not only calls Sauron by the right name, the Black Numenorean's own non-name does so inherently, and he works for the guy! As well, why not bring up the fact that the Dark Lord's Messenger speaks the name repeatedly in his visits to Dain, as described by Gloin at the Council of Elrond. And of course, when we read the thoughts of the Nazgul as they search the house at Crickhollow, they think the name Sauron while comforting themselves that the only good hobbit is an enslaved hobbit.
I think Christopher Tolkien is being charitable by suggesting that Aragorn's information is out of date. Aragorn was at the Council of Elrond, after all. I go with the idea that JRRT goofed while trying to achieve a little dramatic effect for Aragorn, Sherlock-wise, in a moment of hasty writing. Otherwise we have to twist the meaning of a plain sentence too much, and I hate doing that just to keep Tolkien's creation impeccably consistent.
squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd (and NOW the 4th too!) TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
 = Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
Oct 11 2012, 8:13pm
Post #5 of 39
(1448 views)
Shortcut
|
‘Nay!’ said Legolas. ‘Sauron does not use the Elf-runes.’
But Sauron used Elvish runes to write his message on the One Ring, according to Gandfalf: Elvish letters using the language of Mordor (The Shadow of the Past.) We could say that's inconsistent too, but I'd say there's a lot of complexity in Middle-earth, and to qualify every statement used in dialogue or description would be unwieldy, so I don't take Tolkien's declarations at face value unless there's a compelling reason to. I take the point in the dialogue to mean that the other two are correcting Gimli's perception that if you see an "S" on orc armor, it means Sauron. Tolkien is trying to deepen the mystery a little here for these three on who their real enemy is.
‘S is for Sauron,’ said Gimli. ‘That is easy to read.’
‘Nay!’ said Legolas. ‘Sauron does not use the Elf-runes. Except when he is writing on Rings of Power messages that only he will read."
‘Neither does he use his right name, nor permit it to be spelt or spoken, except by his messengers and spokespersons in certain diplomatic situations, or when they've been foiled from seizing the ring in hobbit homes in Buckland, or when...,’ said Aragorn.
|
|
|
mandel
Rivendell
Oct 11 2012, 11:56pm
Post #6 of 39
(1402 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What reason would Sauron have at that point...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...to forbid the use of his name? "Okay guys, I know I've made war on the whole world, and this army of men is standing at my gates in a last ditch effort to oppose me. But MAYBE, just MAYBE...if y'all call me...I don't know - Stan? Yeah, that's it: call me Stan, and MAYBE it'll throw them off..."
|
|
|
aruman
Rivendell
Oct 12 2012, 1:30am
Post #7 of 39
(1407 views)
Shortcut
|
I always thought he enforced that rule as some sign of respect. I don't know, for some reason it seemed neat to me that a "Dark Lord" wouldn't allow his servants to use his name. I always imagined that it was OK for his emissaries to use the name in dealing with others (enemies) for reference, but his lower servants couldn't use the name...or perhaps it wasn't able to be widely used in Mordor.
In the movies Elrond, Denethor, Haldir, Galadriel, and Celeborn stink.
|
|
|
aruman
Rivendell
Oct 12 2012, 1:34am
Post #8 of 39
(1394 views)
Shortcut
|
The point of the dialogue was to help determine where the orcs were from and where Merry and Pippen had been taken. If CuriousG and I are correct, and the use of Sauron's name was widely forbidden in Mordor, it wouldn't really have been relevant if some of Saurons "higher ups" used his name in dealing with the enemy, so Aragorn may just not have pointed that out.
It seems like most uses of the name are restricted to dealing with the enemy, perhaps to make it clear who they were talking about?
In the movies Elrond, Denethor, Haldir, Galadriel, and Celeborn stink.
|
|
|
Plurmo
Rohan
Oct 12 2012, 4:27am
Post #9 of 39
(1409 views)
Shortcut
|
The preconceived view that Gimli was the one that could be "mistaken at all points" is at work here. But in this passage evidently Gimli is wrong, Legolas is wrong and Aragorn is wrong. The easily mistaken dwarf, the very insular elf and the relatively young man being themselves. All of them being professorial and wrong, each in his peculiar way. Perhaps they are not the voice of the author this time. Perhaps reaching the right conclusion (Saruman) through a series of wrong arguments is something academics are used to, and like to joke about in very subtle ways.
In my understanding the orcs also use "Lugbúrz" as a substitute name for Sauron roughly similar to the way the british use "Wales" for the Prince, "Norfolk" for the Duke, etc. Maybe the orcs in The Hobbit could call the Necromancer "Guldlúrz."
"Filthy Shriekers" is how the cool orcs called the Nazgûl. A very inspired and sensible name, as only orcs could produce.
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
Oct 12 2012, 10:35am
Post #10 of 39
(1370 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think you've hit the nail on the head.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I agree there's no "inconsistency" here, just a lack of detail in that discussion between Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli. If Tolkien had chosen to go off on a digression to spell out the complexity (as CuriousG puts it) in Sauron's use of his name amongst his servants, then perhaps his son (who apparently was always on the lookout for inconsistencies in his father's work, sometimes to his father's chagrin!) wouldn't have felt the need to repair something that didn't actually need fixing.
I agree with you that Aragorn & co's conversation was entirely on the level of the badges of the orcs, and at that level Tolkien goes on as the story progresses to show very clearly how that worked. I just re-read the chapter The Uruk-hai last night, because your post made me realize that some of the traits I noticed in the different groups of orcs in our last discussion might be made clearer in light of what you said. And indeed, in that chapter you can see a clear difference between the Uruk-hai, who call themselves servants of Saruman, and who seem to feel some kind of orcish loyalty to him, and the Mordor orcs who, although they do talk about Lugburz, i.e. Mordor, never mention Sauron by name, and only talk about him as the Great Eye that they all fear.
Sauron's orcs, it seems, were to think of him only as this disembodied, impersonal Eye, an all-permeating sense of being observed that keeps them to their tasks not by any personal attachment to an actual lord and master, but only by fear of being seen and punished. He doesn't want them to feel loyalty to him, or even feel they "know" him - he just wants them to feel the nameless fear of being constantly watched. It's not uncommon in mythical stories for a villain to be someone Who Must Not Be Named - but it's usually the victims of the villain who are afraid to use the name, not his own servants. Sauron uses this psychological fear of the name against his own orcs.
The Nazgul on the other hand, as Sauron's high-level enforcers, do seem to have a personal loyalty to him. So they are free to think of him not just as the Great Eye (except when they're putting the frighteners on orcs, no doubt) but as Sauron, the Dark Lord they admire and serve willingly. The same presumably goes in spades for the Mouth of Sauron. It's all there in the story, when you come to look. I've always found the Uruk-hai chapter rather confusing, but I''m now thinking that there's quite an insight into orcish psychology right there!
They went in, and Sam shut the door.
But even as he did so, he heard suddenly,
deep and unstilled,
the sigh and murmur of the Sea upon the shores of Middle-earth.
From the unpublished Epilogue to the Lord of the Rings
|
|
|
sador
Half-elven
Oct 12 2012, 12:41pm
Post #11 of 39
(1388 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That's not what I would call complexity.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But Sauron used Elvish runes to write his message on the One Ring, according to Gandfalf: Elvish letters using the language of Mordor
However, Isildur wrote in his Scroll that there are no other letters for such delicate work, and this was anyway nearly five hundred years ago. Things have changed. Not so with Aragorn's statement, which is contradicted three times by contemporary events (well two, if you don't count the Riders' thoughts).
In this case, there is no way around it: Aragorn is simply wrong. Whether it is Aragorn, or Tolkien himself, is a question of whether you think within Middle-earth or as an outside reader. As a reader, there is no doubt that squire is correct, and this is one of Tolkien's slips (there are others).
But if you try to think internally - why don't you do it properly? Aragorn is wrong, and being in the Council, he should have known better. I take this to mean that he is not infallible - and consequently, allow myself to question all of his authoritve statements, and look out for different interpretations of the events. Now that's complexity for you!
The problem is that of course, the inconsistency is not there to teach us Aragorn is human, but because Tolkien himself made mistakes. So what? He created a world too great and complex for himself to mantain consistency in, thus making it more like history or mythology than a mere story. Otherwise, what would we be discussing?
"Bard is known as someone who forebodes gloomy things like floods and poisoned fish. Floods I can see, but poisoned fish? How and why would Bard forebode poisoned fish? Or is this just a slander against Bard?"
- Curious
The weekly discussion of The Hobbit is back. Join us in the Reading Room for Fire and Water!
|
|
|
Tweezers of Thu
Rivendell
Oct 12 2012, 12:49pm
Post #12 of 39
(1463 views)
Shortcut
|
|
From Parma Eldalamberon 17, Saura (Quenya) = foul, vile...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...whence (the) name Sauron, cf. SAWA- disgusting, foul, vile.
So. Would you wish to be called "The Disgusting?" Or "The Vile?"*
I chalk up the discrepancy between the Mouth of Sauron's reference to his Big Boss and Aragorn's declaration to inconsistency on the part of the author. Considering how complex JRRT's imaginary history is, it's not surprising that there were lapses on his part. No need to hand wave them away.
*Back in the day when I wore the ring of a middle-management Nazgûl in the dark halls of Pharma-dûr, I preferred my minions to call me She Who Must Be Obeyed. 
A lake is the landscape's most beautiful and expressive feature. It is Earth's eye; looking into which the beholder measures the depth of his own nature. ~~ Henry David Thoreau
(This post was edited by Tweezers of Thu on Oct 12 2012, 12:54pm)
|
|
|
aruman
Rivendell
Oct 12 2012, 3:33pm
Post #13 of 39
(1396 views)
Shortcut
|
While I will admit that it is possible that Aragorn was simply basing his statement on false knowledge, I'm surprised that you feel that there is not at least room for the possibility that he was speaking in a general sense.
Aragorn was in a hurry to make the correct decision. He didn't have time to delve into exceptions to a rule that, as far as we know, was generally followed by Sauron's servants, especially Orcs, the creatures in question.
Clearly, as with many rules, there were exceptions. Most of these seem to fall under the category of use during diplomacy by his emissaries, perhaps for clarity, and by his upper level servants.
These exceptions were not relevant at the time. The companions were able to (corrrectly) determine that the Orcs (with the S- rune) were from Isengard.
I'm not trying to "hand wave" anything away, nor would I refuse to admit if there was an inconsistency. If this were an inconsistency, it would effect my enjoyment of the book very little, if at all.
We don't know what JRR was thinking exactly, or what he would say about this, I'm just explaining why this never posed a problem in my mind.
If we posed this questions to JRR it could go a couple ways 2 possibilities: "Hey why did Aragorn say this and yet the Mouth of Sauron said that?" "Oh yeah, I goofed up."
or
"Well, of course the name was used in certain situations, where it needed to be used, but the point is that there wouldn't be an S-rune on the gear of his Orcs."
If we are taking every sentence in LOTR at face value then I guess we've solved the Balrog/wings debate!
In the movies Elrond, Denethor, Haldir, Galadriel, and Celeborn stink.
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
Oct 12 2012, 7:10pm
Post #14 of 39
(1436 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Plenty of doubt, when you think about it
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
‘Neither does he use his right name, nor permit it to be spelt or spoken,’ said Aragorn.
OK, so how much time does Aragorn, or any of the Wise, spend in Mordor eavesdropping on every orc, troll, Variag of Khand, and Nazgul conversation, and reading through all the Mordor mail and literature to even make this statement with certainty? Hearsay, I say, hearsay.
Wait, balrogs have wings?! Can they fly, or are they more like penguin wings? (just kidding!)
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Oct 12 2012, 8:47pm
Post #15 of 39
(1357 views)
Shortcut
|
As with cats (per T. S. Eliot):
But above and beyond there's still one name left over,
And that is the name that you never will guess;
The name that no human research can discover--
But THE CAT HIMSELF KNOWS, and will never confess.
Aragorn was right, and there's no inconsistency.
Join us NOW in the Reading Room for detailed discussions of The Hobbit, July 9-Nov. 18!
Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Oct 13 2012, 1:45am
Post #17 of 39
(1442 views)
Shortcut
|
The "Mouth of Sauron" speaks directly for the Dark Lord, hence his utterances are given weight by name alone. The MoS has no name, or at least has forgotten it so long ago that it no longer applies.
If you think about it, the very act of saying "I am the Mouth of Sauron" is in itself demeaning, indicating a subservience and slavish surrender far beyond a more standard ambassador or emissary.
Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
|
|
|
ElendilTheShort
Gondor
Oct 13 2012, 8:36am
Post #18 of 39
(1347 views)
Shortcut
|
casual observance of most situations, rules that are not absolutes that are superceded under unique circumstances such as creating the One Ring or presenting an ultimatum under parely to your main remaining foes that you are about to crush or enslave.
On a different tack, there were comments above about the Nazgul as willing servants of Sauron....this is the opposite to the real situation. They were utterly enslaved through their rings, which Sauron has in his possesion. As mortal men they willingly accepted the rings but they had no idea of the ultimate consequence.
(This post was edited by ElendilTheShort on Oct 13 2012, 8:38am)
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Oct 13 2012, 10:24pm
Post #20 of 39
(1308 views)
Shortcut
|
|
technically, runes versus letters...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... equates to cirth versus tiw in Tolkien's world, and the One was not inscribed with runes (cirth) but with letters (tiw).
For myself I see no reason for Aragorn to digress into exceptions here -- his meaning can be general even if he didn't begin with 'generally speaking' Sauron...
It's just natural enough speech in my opinion: Aragorn's point is sound enough in context here; his listeners get the intended meaning with respect to the rune in question, and digressing about possible exceptions is not necessary. And the Mouth of Sauron can be an easy exception too, in my opinion, since he is essentially speaking for Sauron himself.
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Oct 13 2012, 10:30pm
Post #21 of 39
(1309 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The meaning 'disgusting, foul, vile'...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... was revised a bit by Tolkien however.
Sauron was revised to mean The Abhorred or The detestable, and hailed from a different root THAW- (not SAWA- as found in PE17)
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Oct 13 2012, 10:48pm
Post #23 of 39
(1372 views)
Shortcut
|
|
A Dark Lord by any other name...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... I know you're just having fun but I'll say it anyway: the fact that Sauron might not be seen as Sauron's 'real' name is not an easy way out, as the S-rune is an S-rune, and thus Aragorn means Sauron in any case (not Mairon or something else).
A 'problem' there might be that _S_aruman was not a true name at the time but a modern translation, but one can assume that whatever name 'Saruman' meant to translate begins with the same sound.
Or sssomething
(This post was edited by Elthir on Oct 13 2012, 10:48pm)
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
Oct 14 2012, 11:58am
Post #24 of 39
(1289 views)
Shortcut
|
...there were comments above about the Nazgul as willing servants of Sauron....this is the opposite to the real situation. They were utterly enslaved through their rings And you're right, calling the Nazgul "willing servants" is to ignore their backstory completely. I wasn't thinking of the backstory though, but of the story's present, after the Nazgul had long ago gone over completely to the "dark side", and had become trusted servants of Sauron. I'm no expert on the Appendices and other writings, that's for sure, but as far as I can see the Nazgul are long past feeling any reluctance about serving Sauron, and now feel entirely on his side. At least, if their thoughts at Crickhollow ("Let the little people blow! Sauron would deal with them later...") are more than just the invention of the narrator(s), then they suggest to me that the Nazgul feel themselves in sympathy with Sauron. You're right of course that they were "enslaved" long ago, but I think they now serve Sauron willingly, and out of more than just fear. In this they are very different from the orcs, who (as the hobbits see and hear at first hand) are always looking for ways to rebel, and are only kept in line by the fear that they are under constant surveillance by the impersonal, unknowable Eye. (Think East Germany, The Lives of Others, Nineteen Eighty-Four...)
That's what I noticed when I read the sections in which we overhear orcs' thoughts and behaviour. They never mention Sauron by name, and always call him the "Great Eye". It's almost a taboo, or a kind of group-think. It's different with other races - Sauron can't cow them in the same way because his "Eye" doesn't (yet) reach that far. So when talking to Dwarves, Men or whoever, Sauron's servants do present him as a personal Dark Lord and use his name accordingly.
So if Tolkien "goofed", I reckon he only goofed in not spelling out his thoughts completely in Aragorn's words. I find it hard to believe that an author would know his own characters so poorly that he would write something about one of them (and his chief villain at that!) that's just wrong. And I certainly don't buy answers that offend the conventions of storytelling (such as "the info was out of date", or "Aragorn doesn't know everything"), because whatever else he may be accused of, Tolkien is an excellent storyteller, and by storytelling convention, information that is given in this unqualified way is meant to be accepted by the reader as correct. Those kinds of explanations would only work if there was some payoff for them, which there isn't. By the law of Occam's Razor, then, I would argue that the simplest explanation is that Tolkien was writing something that did make sense in his own mind for Sauron's character, but that he never spelled out well enough to satisfy the nitpickers among us!
(Edited to add: sorry I got a bit far from my reply to your point, ElendilTheShort.  Some of the above is just meant as general rambling theorizing on the original topic...)
They went in, and Sam shut the door.
But even as he did so, he heard suddenly,
deep and unstilled,
the sigh and murmur of the Sea upon the shores of Middle-earth.
From the unpublished Epilogue to the Lord of the Rings
(This post was edited by FarFromHome on Oct 14 2012, 12:06pm)
|
|
|
squire
Half-elven
Oct 14 2012, 1:35pm
Post #25 of 39
(1274 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Can one be "willing" or "unwilling" when one no longer has a will?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I agree with you that we can hardly see the Nazgul as "oppressed slaves", since that implies they would take freedom if they could get it, in the manner of the cynical orcs. But there is a magic here that precludes the opposite conclusion as well, that they are somehow "in sympathy" with Sauron or "feel entirely on his side". Both characterizations credit the Nazgul with some kind of independent sense of being, and I think Tolkien intends us to realize that that is exactly what the Nazgul lack. They do Sauron's work neither willingly nor unwillingly, but simply because they have become metaphysical extensions of him, via the rings they bear and the One Ring that contains Sauron's essential spirit.
Tolkien is more explicit about this in his writings that followed the completion of The Lord of the Rings:
At length [Sauron] resolved that no others would serve him in this case but his mightiest servants, the Ringwraiths, who had no will but his own, being each utterly subservient to the ring that had enslaved him, which Sauron held. ("The Hunt for the Ring", Unfinished Tales)
[Had Frodo claimed the Ring in Mount Doom without interference by Gollum, the Nazgul would have been dispatched to stall him until Sauron himself could come.] I do not think they could have attacked him with violence, nor laid hold upon him or taken him captive; they would have obeyed or feigned to obey any minor commands of his that did not interfere with their errand–laid upon them by Sauron, who still through their nine rings (which he held) had primary control of their wills. (Letter 246, September 1963)
squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd (and NOW the 4th too!) TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.
|
|
|
|
|
1
