[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

This just strikes me as yet another example of Tolkien attempting to make the Legendarium 'fit' in response to challenges from Christian correspondents. 'Oh, its really there, but I just didn't mention it' is a cop out. The real point is that for the purposes of the Legendarium there was no need for a Fall of Man - it played no significant part - unlike the Fall of the Elves.

Yet the 'Athrabeth', as a private piece of writing, can hardly be viewed as an apologist work. I cannot believe that Tolkien was not 'serious' about introducing elements of Christian theology into the Legendarium when he wrote it - even if the impetus to do so did originally arise from his defensive replies to Christian critics. If Tolkien considered a criticism to his work and altered it in response, does that make the resulting work any less valid?

The Athrabeth is a work of great beauty & profundity, but if it is read as a reference to the Christian story it ties the Secondary world too closely into the Primary world

Please clarify: is this thread dedicated to the facts about Tolkien's works or to Davem's opinions of them?

You're free to view the Athrabeth any way you like, but let's leave such subjective appraisals out of the discussion.

Of course, this is the danger of the Translator Conceit, because the TC actually does attempt to tie the Legendarium into the Primary World.

Are you arguing that Tolkien did not intend Arda to be a fictional version of the real world - an "imaginary history"? I find this hard to believe given the fact that he spent so much time linking his sub-creation with our world.