[littlemanpoet]

Wow! Away for almost two days and look what happens!

I'll be glad when Rowlings' series is complete, so we have the whole thing to look at and can discuss the thing knowing what she's really driving toward. For now, we're still in the dark. That seems to be one difference between her and Tolkien: we know by the end of Chapter 2 what the big themes are in LotR; after five books of Harry, we're still not sure what Rowlings' big themes really are.

Originally Posted by Raynor

But that is exactly what makes the difference - the motives, because, as Tolkien states in Letter #155, both the good side and the evil one use the same means of magic.

I can't agree. Gandalf refuses the Ring when Frodo offers it because he knows that it would corrupt him, though he would begin his tyranny with good motives. Tolkien's saying that dehumanizing means (technology) are ethically wrong (or at least inferior or dangerous) even if one's motives are good.

Originally Posted by Raynor

My conclusion would be that the elves had a certain critical role in ME: to raise Men to a higher level...

I agree that we should not paint with too broad a brush regarding the Elves as somehow always wrong for realizing their ability of profound subcreation. But I cannot disagree more strongly with your conclusion: it's too Human-centered, which the first three Ages most certainly were not. The raising of certain Men to the highest level attainable, is a by-product rather than the primary purpose of the Elves. It must be remembered that ALL of Tolkien's Legendarium is based on myths and legends told and written in the past; or on hypothetical proto-words Tolkien subcreated as must- or should-have-been. Those myths are about Elves who without fail affected Men, most often for the worse, as has been discussed elsewhere on the Downs, but not as their God-(or Eru)-given purpose!

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I think that Men are able to 'reach their potential' without the Elves - as shown in Men like Faramir - he may look fondly on his Numenorean heritage but he is living in Gondor, a long way from the Elves.

I think the relation of Men and Elves and 'full potential' is chasing after the bucket at the end of the rainbow. It should be noted, also, that in the mythos Tolkien created, blood-lines were of utmost importance, and in Faramir the Numenorean ran true, and Tolkien "plays this up", so to speak, to show that Faramir is noble in the way that Aragorn is; and Faramir had Gandalf for a teacher (one more reason why Denethor despised both); point being, Faramir learned at just as noble feet as did Aragorn.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

What is the role of nostalgia in the Rohirric outlook, that is, the characters? Or are you saying that Tolkien himself created a nostalgic, revisionary history for The Mark?

I must admit to a certain degree of confusion (a failure to adequately comprehend) regarding this 'hobbits as readers' idea of yours. It's not the way my mind works, I guess. At any rate, I'm saying the latter. That does not, of course, mean that I don't see the former as a possibility. That said, it seems to me that the Rohirrim are described as a folk still existing in their poetic age. They have not yet made certain distinctions required for nostalgia to even be possible for them. They do revere their past (as opposed to their history, which is an entirely different thing, but that is fodder for a different thread), but that's not the same thing as nostalgia.

Tolkien, however, did indeed write a nostalgic revisionary feigned history for "The Mark". (For those of you who might feel as if you're a little 'outside' this particular aspect of the conversation, Bethberry and I are referring to the West Midlands, that part of England with which Tolkien so closely identified himself; this land was known historically as Anglo-Saxon Mercia, which just happens to be the Latinate form of "The Mark".) I know he says so himself ... somewhere. But what does this say to us, beyond the fact that Tolkien wrote about what he loved?