[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Davem wrote:
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?

It doesn't invalidate it at all. the question is whether it weakens its effect or not.

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

Shan't.

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

Shan't

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.

(Of course, I can only respond to this question because of my obstinate refusal of your request to me to leave out personal appraisals & opinions.....)

I am not arguing that Tolkien did not intend Arda to be a fictional version of the real world - an "imaginary history". I actually said:'Of course, this is the danger of the Translator Conceit, because the TC actually does attempt to tie the Legendarium into the Primary World.. I was referring to the danger involved in the idea that the events of the Legendarium were Primary World historical events - because we know they weren't. This was ultimately the cause of the confused mess CT presents is 'Myths Transformed'.