[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Davem wrote:
Given the remote and uninvolved character of Eru, I think the idea that he would directly intervene to prevent Frodo from failing is out of the question. Melkor ruled Middle-earth for many long ages and Eru did not intervene; why would he treat Sauron differently?

This is a point I've made numerous times - the remote & uninvolved nature of Eru - & been informed that he is constantly at work in the world 'in a hidden way'. But while he is so hidden in LotR that the reader of that work is not aware he is even there (or even actually necessary), The Sil places him firmly in the action - & most importantly in the mind of the reader. The whole universe is transformed by his presence, both its essential nature & its ultimate fate.

I agree that the Silmarillion offers one a new way of looking at LotR. But I simply can't see how it could 'detract from the sacrifices made, the struggles undergone' as you suggest. There is certainly no assurance in the Silmarillion that good will defeat evil within the world, nor anything to rule out the possibility of Sauron's victory and dominion over Middle-earth.

Yes, the whole 'long defeat' thing is there - but again, that's another change. From a reading of LotR as a stand alone (with TH tacked on) work, we know very little of 'Melkor', of any of the 'ancient history' of the world, so we have none of the context for events in LotR that the Sil provides (anyone want to argue that a reader of LotR who then comes to the Sil is able to retain their concept of Elves as heroic, beautiful, wise & good?). LotR is made smaller & more limited by the existence of the Sil in the reader's mind - the 'Great War against Evil!' becomes 'another war against evil'. 'Frodo's Great Sacrifice of Himself to save the World!' becomes 'another great sacrifice of another hero to save the world (again)'. Its difficult to argue (wrongly, of course, of course) that Frodo is a 'Christ' figure (which is possible after a reading of LotR) when one has read of the repeated sacrifices of heroes throughout the whole history of Arda. I repeat - Good & evil become choices which only affect the individual & his or her own time & place but cannot affect or determine the ultimate fate of the world.

Originally Posted by Gwath

If we should be careful of saying that good or bad are things that exist in and of themselves, then we should be equally careful of saying that good and bad are nothing more than terms developed to indicate certain patterns of behavior. Both are ditches that lie on opposite sides of the road. Plato found his way into the first ditch, where the only real thing was the ultimate good (i.e. the Forms). The other ditch is just as bad, where the term "good" has been stripped of all vestiges of permanence or transcendence.

I think it could be argued that in LotR while good & evil are not exactly stripped of all vestiges of permanence or trancendence, they are choices which can be made freely by any individual - & their reward or punishment is simply the kind of world they get to live in. They don't have any 'cosmic' significance. Characters make the kind of bed they want to lie in, & whatever choice they make is not going to please or anger any higher power, & either side can win. Good & evil as permanent/transcendent states (or good as truly permanent/transcendent/evil as its illusory shadow) only come in with the Sil. Building the 'Republic of Heaven' is the task for the victors of LotR as stand alone work - they have to make their paradise, as best they can, with the tools they have to hand. Bring in the Sil & the only option is the Kingdom of Eru (when he finally gets around to bringing it about).