[The Saucepan Man]

I beg to differ, Saucepan Man. A paradox is a seeming inconsistency that, apon closer inspection turns out not to be inconsistent. thus the phrase "an apparent paradox" is redundent.

Yes, that is one definition of "paradox", Dancing_Hobbit. But another definition, given in my Concise Oxford Dictionary is:

a person or thing conflicting with a preconceived notion of what is reasonable or possible.

Taking that definition, the "preconceived notion" might be Tolkien's "rules" for the world which he created, so that Tom might then be seen as conflicting with those rules such that he could not be explained by reference to them. But I agree in the sense that there is scope for the argument that Tom is a conundrum, whose existence might be explained by finding the carefully hidden clues. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]

For the second, I will propose a sort of Aquinasish dualism of Ea having a Hroa and Fea, and that TOm is the Fea, and that it is the Hroa that has fallen.

Yes, I follow your logic, lindil. But, is it not the case that the marring of Arda taints both the Hroa and the Fea of those who inhabit it? Surely they would not be capable of committing evil if their Fea were not marred. And, if the Fea of Arda's inhabitants is marred, then the Fea of the embodiment of Ea (which encompasses Arda) would surely also be similarly marred.