[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

There's also the problem of what to do with Sauron if, by a remote chance, he was defeated. Keeping him as a POW would be too risky, considering what he did in Númenor in the Second Age. All he needs to do is to wait a couple of generations for those who knew him as an enemy to die off, and let people grow up who might feel sorry for him. We can also look back and see the havoc his former master, Morgoth, wreaked in Valinor after he was released. The only way to keep him harmless when he was overcome again at the end of the First Age was to imprison him outside of Arda, casting him out beyond the Walls of Night.

An excellent point. Sauron's track record is somewhat against him. It does make me curious about Tolkien's views on the nature of evil, for it seems to be a thing that pollutes and cannot be cured completely, especially in the cases of magical beings. The more power one has, the deeper an evil seed will grow.
Another point on this could be seen in how Bilbo reacts to the Ring. It had a hold over him that lasted the rest of his life (as far as we know) and even at Rivendell, after the thing had been destroyed, he was still obsessed with it. The poison of evil contaminates even the best of Hobbits.
Sam is an interesting departure from this rule, however. He is tempted by the Ring, but ultimately refuses. Indeed, that he does not perceive himself to be in any position of authority may be something here. He rejects the power offered by Sauron and plods along.
A case of power corrupts, perhaps? We see most characters who occupy powerful positions or abilities to be more susceptible to more permanent damage from evil. Gandalf seems to have this fear at the forefront when Frodo offers him the Ring.

Originally Posted by shadowfax

In the absence of Melkor, Sauron was in a way Satan incarnate. You cannot utterly destroy evil in this world, you can defeat it for a while but it will come back and hence every generation must be on its guard. There is thus no "war to end all war". I therefore believe that Tolkien intentionally left open a possibility by which Sauron could survive and one day return.

Which is why The New Shadow always interested me.
The Elves were always fighting 'The Long Defeat'.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

I have the impression Tolkien held that for killing to be at all ethically justifiable, you had (among other things) to face the reality of the act. When you read his WWII letters to Christopher (who was serving in the RAF at the time), you gather that he considered anonymous killing by dropping a bomb from a plane on people you don't really see assignable to Mordor (which got its own Special Flying Corps in the book) and was deeply concerned about the possibility of his son being spiritually harmed by taking part in this kind of warfare, even though he was realist enough to see that it was necessary under the given conditions.

That's exactly what I was getting at! .
One criticism that I've heard most from people who have only watched the films is that it's all 'men with swords killing one another'. This, I don't need to tell you, is not really the case. The battles don't tend to get as much attention as the ramifications. Battles make for entertaining cinema, perhaps, but more emphasis is put on the characters in the prose. The way Aragorn and Eomer interact in Helms Deep, for example is an interesting one.
Moreover, the fact that the Wild Men fight at Helms Deep adds and interesting dimension. These are not the horrible and disposable Orcs that come in their thousands, but men like the Rohirum. Also, think about the kinds of fears the Wild Men have of the Rohirum. That they will kill them and burn them and be merciless. So when they show mercy, it is surprising to them. Tolkien appears to prise mercy, even to enemies.
(Yeah, guess which part of The Lord of the Rings I'm in the middle of reading at the moment )

Originally Posted by Sarumian

This observation leads us to the exciting and complicated question of what is death in the Tolkien's universe. Not going into details we can state that death there means separation of a soul from a body; in case of Men it is irreversible, though Elves theoretically could return to their bodily shape. Anyway even for Men death never meant elimination of spirit, but rather the departure from Arda and return to Eru (the Creator). Moreover, the separation can be either voluntary (elves) or compulsory (men).

Yes, when death isn't really death, it gets confusing, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Here is the crux of the problem: Iluvatar seems to be less and less involved in the plight of Arda as Tolkien's history goes on.

Unlike El / YHVH, Eru / Illuvatar is not so involved in the creation of the world. He is indirectly responsible, perhaps. But ultimately, it is the Valar who are the creators, for it is their music (though a convincing argument that it all came from Eru anyway could be made). The point is, Eru seems to have handed most of the responsibility over to the slightly inept and bumbling Valar. Once again, this probably has a lot to do with Tolkien's love of Pantheons.

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

And this is where I believe Tolkien, either by misunderstanding Biblical narrative, or by not realizing it, departs from similarity.

For every 'correct' interpretation of the Bible, there are a thousand men telling you it is incorrect.
Moreover, I never saw Gandalf, or any figure in the mythology, as a parallel of Christ, or, at least, never a complete one. Indeed, I doubt there are any complete parallels, but many characters displaying elements.

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

I would see Gandalf as more of a parallel to Moses than anyone

In some ways, yes, in others, no. Again, you have to remember that the Bible isn't the only mythology Tolkien drew from.

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Tolkien obviously derives his Ainulindalë from the Council of El in the Bible.

That's not entirely accurate. But Formy has given pretty much the response I would have. *high fives Formy*

Originally Posted by Eldorion

I've never read His Dark Materials, but in the other cases, the antagonist is not killed by the hero, per se. Certainly he dies, but it is somewhat indirect. In TLtWatW, it was as you point out Aslan, not one of Pevensies, who killed the White Witch. In Harry Potter, Harry's innocence was preserved since he cast only a defensive spell and then other forces kicked in. It's not the same as TLotR, but the hero still doesn't actually kill the villain.

Well, I read HDM a while back and it's fuzzy in my mind, so, apologies there.
Aslan is a hero, though. Not a protagonist, I'll grant you. I'm interested in the nature of how fantasies deal with their villains, which is why I brought it up. Where the usual instinct is to repay evil with evil, in Tolkien's case it is to stop Sauron and Melkor from doing further damage (mainly because they cannot be made to stop existing). In Harry Potter, it is still death, that stops Voldemort.