[Fordim Hedgethistle]

OK, so why have I voted in the "no" camp (other than to rub shoulders with the lovely Feanor, that is)....

To answer that, I would like to emphasise the "free" part of free will: freedom implies a lack of constraints, or -- put another way -- an infinitude of possibility. One's will is unfettered by all considerations other than what the will desires.

This is clearly not the case in Middle-Earth. In the world of Eru, one does have choice, but it is extremely limited -- do what Eru/Providence commands or demands of you (the "good") or don't. And even then, choice is limited insofar as the Will or Eru or the Providential Plan will still work out to its conclusion.

Throughout LotR, for example, people are presented with a series of either/or options -- for Frodo it's claim the Ring or resist the Ring; for Sam it's be loyal or disloyal; for Aragorn it's follow the Paths of the Dead or not; for Eomer it's help Aragorn or hinder him, and on and on and on. And all of these choices are really the same choice -- choose between good or bad; to follow those who are doing Eru's work or to hinder them. And like I said above, even those who choose to hinder the Plan still end up helping it along -- Saruman bringing Merry and Pippin to Fangorn, Gollum betraying Frodo, etc.

That is why I say there is no free will in Middle-Earth. 'Free' in the sense that nobody is completely unfettered of the plan or design of Middle-Earth's creator. This is, I would add, an essentially Medieval view of the world -- no surprise givien the Professor's imaginative debt to that world. The absolute freedom of the individual to choose to become or to be or to act in whatever way or form as desired by the individual was unimaginable to the Medieval mind: it was much simpler than that -- do good/what God commands or don't. So the will is operative, but not within a very wide or "free" scope.