[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

First of all, I'd like to clarify that it's only the later posts that seem to be turning into a catalogue of evidence. Your point Gwaihir, was exactly what I feared when first I began to look at this probem: that universally applicable ideas had found their way into the legendarium, and that I was indulging in over-analysis. Similarly, Dancing Hobbit's point that certain aspects of Tolkien's moral outlook were included in his writings without a conscious decision has occurred to me, but it seems that the outcome of wrongdoing is too considered, too carefully woven into the fabric of the legends for there not to be some sort of auctorial intent involved.

Even certain names seem to bear out this opinion (although I may be looking too hard for evidence). 'The Mound of Avarice', for example makes no mention of whose avarice caused the slaughter of those beneath the sad barrow, so that the only impression that posterity would receive is that greed itself was the villain. Is this a moral comment by those who buried the slain, a comment by the author, or both? Although I'm inclined towards the latter point of view, the clear reference by name to one of the Deadly Sins seems quite clear.

Amarie makes an interesting point with the idea of contrasting the Cardinal Virtues and their effects with those of the Deadly Sins. On the face of it something like Húrin's defiance of Morgoth, both on the field of the Nirnaeth Arnoediad and later while a captive, was ultimately pointless, since Turgon and his people were later scattered in any case. However, his refusal to betray the Elves of Gondolin does buy sufficient time for Tuor to arrive with Ulmo's message, for him to meet and marry Idril and for Eärendil to be born. The workings of virtue do not benefit directly those who show it, but they do ultimately turn out for the best. Perhaps this was Tolkien's way of telling us that our virtuous acts are never in vain.

What I was really wondering is whether or not my theory was realistic. Since all sorts of things, from subconscious projection of the author's own values to general applicability, to simple coincidence could have led to the appearance of these aspects in the legends of Middle-earth, I'm well aware that I might be completely off-beam, and I was hoping to see something here that would put me back on course.

Anyway, my apologies to those of you who were actually debating. The posts that led to my somewhat dejected attitude last night appear to have been deleted overnight in any case.