[drigel]

Just to keep it going, ill play a little you-know-who's advocate, in the sprirt of the Brin article - which struck me as more of alternative observation than critique - but that may be just me (yea i actually do [as per usual] agree w/the consensus of posters here)

If accepted, Tolkien's position requires people to aknowledge an objective moral code, (& an objectively existing 'source' of that code).

Ah, but who's code is it? It seems to me that some of Aragorns Numenorian ancestery was not wholly Good per say. Much of the time when they came to ME "...they appeared now rather as lords and masters and gatherers of tribute than as helpers and teachers..." What would those tributee's opinion be of the mighty Numenoreans?

We know why the Edain were favored by the Vala, but why were the generations of decendants of the other tribes punished for their forefather's sins? The sons of Amandil after all were not directly of royal decent, rather 2nd cousins removed. So what right did they have to rule? And why would someone from Rhun honor that right?

However, what Tolkien draws upon in his work are values which are indeed universal, among them ideas of sacrifice, service, honour.

Individual heroic romantic ideals. But like the Exiles, does might make right?

Sauron's army was the one that included every species and race on Middle Earth


no, it wasn't. Sauron's army consisted of Ainuir, Men, Orcs, and trolls, if you count trolls. the good guys had Ainuir, Elves, Men, Dwarves, and Hobbits, if you count Hobbits.

umm I may be once again all alone, but with the exception of the incredible (Wizards, ents, trolls, eagles etc.), I would submit that all of the above mentioned really are just expressions of us. Children all of us

edit

What I find most interesting though, is that these critics are not able to accept Tolkien's philosophical position even within the secondary world. They are incapable of not projecting it onto the primary world.

quite so. I can find no counter in my bag o' tricks for that one.