[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Legolas

Eru is God of Ea. I simply continued to use "God" to further emphasize that he is The God of Ea.

I don't know exactly what you mean - feel free to be explicit - but I am speaking as the story is a continuous one in which the author need not reintroduce characters in each episode.

Originally Posted by Legolas, originally

It is not a literary device deus ex machina, but a literal deus ex machina - a literal act of God. The eagles are not a symbolical representation of God (or anything else) - they literally are sent from God (or actually his regent, in this case). That was the entire point.

Frodo, the Fellowship, and all of 'good' Middle-earth could not win it alone - yet they continued in faith, and in the end, a higher power carried them the rest of the way. (This is a concept taught in Christianity as well.)

Deary me. Is the aura being too cryptic?

Thanks for your comment, Legolas. I think we need to be careful about several points in the discussion.

We need to be careful in discussing LotR within the context of other texts such as The Silm, especially since The Silm we have was produced by another hand and even HoMe, which attempts to 'get back to' Tolkien's original text, is a postumous text. LotR does not present Eru, the valar, etc as explicitly as The Silm does. Tolkien chose a different kind of text and style for TH sequel than he used in his private papers about his Legendarium; Tokien hints rather than states directly; to infer the continuity is to make readerly acts, to take up the hints and veiled references which, for most readers, are to a tantalizing half-glimpsed idea. (This leads to another thread possibly: Why did Tolkien write LotR with such veiled allusions to his Legendarium? Why did he excise explicit naming of Eru and leave readers only with songs and characters' half-remembered stories?) It is not incorrect to make these connections, but it should be clear that the acts are acts of interpretation and connection, interpelating one of Tolkien's texts more explicity into another, rather than an explicit statement in the text.

Also, to use the word "God"--and to capitalise it (the Latin deux ex machina is not capitalised)-- especially in the context of a passage which refers to Christianity--gives rise to confusion between the primary world and the sub-created world. Yes, there are enough allusions and signifiers for readers to see Tolkien's faith in LotR--many of us can see the allusions to Galadriel as Queen of Heaven--but Tolkien choose not to make that an explicit writerly act. His text is a marvellously subtle, tantalizingly complex one which invites comparisons and deductions and conclusion but which doesn't make them explicit--applicability. To state directly that the eagles are sent by God is to make the kind of readerly interpretation Tolkien may have invited, but it is wise to respect his wonderfully elusive and allusive style and not imply it is as ploddingly obvious as, for example, Lewis's. I think it actually demeems that applicability, lessens the excitment of the text, lessens the very eucatastrophic nature of the story, to reduce it to "they literally are sent from God (or actually his regent, in this case)."