[Nogrod]

As I can see the whole of this as a nice exercise, I would really like to hear the point of this all. In the tradition of scholastics from the middle-ages, it is downright understandable to search for the "order of creation", where every being had its place in the order of things, created by the supreme craftsman. But would Tolkien had such a thomistic view of the world? (He was catholic, to be sure, but anyway.) And how can you compare individuals with "races" or "subcultures", and put them in the same line?

The Nienna -affair seems to me the most telling one: Gandalf is the hero of the story, but he could not be, what he is, without Nienna.

But what about Tom Bombadill? He (and Goldberry) are not seduced by the ring - neither are they able to use it (?) - but still controlling it, seeing through it and being able to understand it. They are powers beoynd the Middle-Earth proper. Like the ents, they are somewhat immune to these petty skirmishes of men versus the evil.

I can see the LotR and Silm. as stories about the Valar, the Maiar, the elves (elevated mankind), men and the evil. These last ones seem to be the focus. The others are important, but not in the same league with the earlier ones. The Maiar are the tools of the Vala, and that's simple. But the Ents, Tom & Goldberry, the dwarves (due to their birth)? They seem to have some kind of justification of their own, not readily compared to other players on the scene?

So basically it's a question of humans trying to resist the evil, and that's it? These others have their role in the making their part of the affairs, but the scope is on people. These "middle-ones" just play in to the hands of the narration. Nevertheless, these others being much more powerful and independent of the things men (hobbits?) hold dear, they really rise in stature in the eyes of the reader. They are the heroes, without being heroes....