[littlemanpoet]

Sorry for responding to this after so much passage of time. Much has been distracting me of late.

Originally Posted by Helen

Bilbo defeated the spiders; but would Ted Sandyman have half a chance?

I daresay Ted Sandyman had enough orcish in him to go below hobbits. Which means I'm changing hobbits to be higher than orcs. Not in bodily strength, but in moral, cultural, and generally human superiority.

Originally Posted by Helen

I do appreciate your statement regarding Catholicism, spirituality, and hierarchies. "I too am a man under authority, and I say to this soldier...." etc. But that (then) brings it down to the hierarchy of individuals, does it not? Bilbo over spiders, Ted Sandyman under spiders.

Perhaps. Why is this necessarily so? I don't follow the reasoning.

Originally Posted by Helen

And what if some of the spiders are cowardly, and some are braver than others?

This isn't a concern because the only individual 'spiders' Tolkien described were Ungoliant and Shelob, and their 'characters' are clearly dilineated so that placing them in the hierarchy is a matter of discerning and cataloguing superior versus inferior character traits. And Earendilyon's points are apt in this consideration.

Originally Posted by Helen

Could even Bilbo have defeated Shelob-- with Sting but without the phial of Galadriel? How much of Hobbits-Defeating-Spiders depends on Elvish artistry and contributions? How well would Bilbo have done with a normal dagger instead of Sting?

A valid question. It depends upon the significance of Sting and the Ring in Bilbo's encounter with the spiders. My conclusion on this is that without the Ring or Sting, Bilbo still would be superior to one spider, perhaps in combat, but most certainly in culture and moral superiority.

Originally Posted by Helen

Does it matter?

For the sake of this discussion, yes.

Originally Posted by Helen

THe whole point of good stories is the surprises. As long as these rules are "meant to be broken..." (are they?)

I'm not making rules. I'm doing something descriptive. As such, I suppose you could say that I'm building guidelines for the description, but I'm no authority. Just enjoying the pursuit. It is succeeding in helping me find a new way to get back into the stories. I know the stories too well, almost; so now I have a new lens through which to observe the many characters in the Legendarium. As to surprises, are they not very often generated by character? "This is what Sauron's like, so this is what's going to happen." "'Gollum would do such and such, wouldn't do so and so." This is viewing things from what is possibly an authorial perspective.

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Do you think the Silmarils actually enhanced his effect upon Arda?
Luthien wore the Silmaril, set in the Necklace of the Dwarves ... "no Elf would dare assail her." ... It was only when the Silmaril passed to Dior that the sons of Feanor rose up again. .... I'd always thought that it was power of Luthien + power of Sil = unassailable. ... But maybe it was just the power of Luthien herself.

I think you were right in what you always thought. Luthien was of course powerful in her own right. Add the silmaril to that, and her might is increased to something greater than Feanor's since his power was self-seeking and hers was based in love. She was, I believe, one of the most important characters in the entire Legendarium. Maybe THE most important ... to Tolkien?

The sons of Feanor may have feared a backlash, but I think that merely political motivation pales by comparison to the spiritual power of love in Luthien, kindled to greater heights by the light of the holy trees in the silmaril.