[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I believe I have already showed that even to human eyes, the destruction of Numenor was necessary and good, even for its inhabitants. And, as I said previously, "if one is to judge the fact itself that he killed one or many persons, then I believe one is actually questioning his very right to end life at all. Then death itself would appear as a curse (be it "natural" or not, I might add); but this specifically stated to be a distortion of truth, a lie perpetrated by the Enemy".

And this is a real problem - which Tolkien himself acknowledged - death does not feel like a 'gift' - & I'm not sure Tolkien believed that himself. In the BBC documentary Tolkien in Oxford he is shown reading a passage from Simone de Beauvoir:

'When it comes down to any large story, that interests people and holds their interest for any considerable length of time, they're all human stories and are only about one thing, aren't they? Death! (pauses for effect) the ineventability of death. There was a quotation from Simonne de Beauvoir in the paper the other day - about the death in 1939 of a musical composer whom I am very fond of; Carl Maria Weber. The biographer quoted this by Simonne Beauvoir; I'll read it if I may: "There is no such thing as a natural death. Nothing that happens to Man is natural, since his presence calls the whole world into question. All men must die; but for each man, his death is an accident, and and even if he knows it, an unjustifiable violation". Now, you may agree with those words or not: but they are the keyspring of The Lord of the Rings'.

Tolkien contradicts himself - Death, in the mythology is a 'gift'. Yet the 'keyspring to LotR' is that it is 'an accident', 'an unjustifiable violation'. I'd suggest in light of this that death at the hand of God is the least justifiable kind of death imaginable.

What you have to show is that the destruction of Numenor was a morally perfect act within the ethical code by which M-e is supposed to operate. One cannot argue, it seems to me, that every casualty of the destruction was deserving of death, & one undeserved death makes the destruction a morally imperfect act. And this is the whole problem for me. The Valar are not morally perfect. They made mistakes. Hence, if the Valar had been responsible for the destruction we would not expect a morally perfect act. When Eru acts we require it to be so - Eru as the putative source of the Moral Value System of M-e must act in accordance with it - but if he is doing so in this instance then this MVS is not one based in absolute good - not in the sense that we would understand it.

I wouldn't agree; there are differences in tone, but they are explainable

Yes, & he also stated:

“I don’t much approve of The Hobbit myself, preferring my own mythology (which is just touched on) with its consistent nomenclature – Elrond, Gondolin and Esgaroth have escaped out of it – and organized history, to this rabble of Eddaic-named dwarves out of Volüspá, newfangled hobbits and gollums (invented in an idle hour) and Anglo-Saxon runes.”

Tolkien clearly states here that he 'prefers his own mythology' to TH, & hence see TH as a thing apart. Of course, Tolkien seems to contradict himself in these statements, but I note that the earliest letter you quote :Letter #25, published in the Observer, 20.02.1938

My tale is not consciously based on any other book — save one, and that is unpublished: the 'Silmarillion', a history of the Elves, to which frequent allusion is made.

was written after he had been at the sequel for a good while, & had already decided that Gollum's ring was The Ring, & had belonged to 'the Dark Master'. Hence, following his usual practice, he was 'writing back' (in his own imagination at least) & beginning to link The New Hobbit (& by extention) TH itself with the Legendarium. It wasn't so in the beginning.

True, but the mere popularity of a certain interpretation has no relevance in an informed discussion, especially when said interpretation is based on an incomplete knowledge of the intended whole work.

This is not a question of 'relevance', but of perception & 'understandability'. Despite what Tolkien said LotR is, & has been since it was published, perfectly understandable by a general readership with no knowledge of Eru. A reading of TH & LotR (particularly the 1st ed text) leaves the reader open to infer something like Wyrd operating in M-e rather than Eru, a single, omnipotent loving deity. In fact Wyrd seems to me to fit much better with the 'northern' mood & spirit of the two books than the more 'Jaweh-an' figure of Eru (which I had a real struggle to incorporate into my mental M-e on my first reading of The Sil).