[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Raynor

So, if you are not saying that he is a hypocrite, then you are saying that someone else than the author is more trustworthy to identify his intention??

No, not at all. I am saying that the Letters are generally inconclusive as to his intention. Hence the difficulty in ascertaining his intention. Hence the problems associated with trying to find the meaning within his works by reference to his intention.

Trying to divine authorial intention is all well and good, but it is an imperfect science without knowing the man's mind.

Originally Posted by Raynor

As far as I am concerned, Tolkien statement that the secret fire is the christian Holy Fire makes perfect sense to me; the story does achieve the "inner consistency" required for it to be a veritable, successful, subcreation.

But the imposition of the parallel between the secret fire and the holy fire is not only unnecessary for the success of the story (qua story), but it is wholly at odds with "inner consistency", since it requires the imposition of a concept external to the story. If you wish to find "meaning" within LotR by equating the two, that's fine. But I think that you are wrong to suggest that it is necessary, or even complimentary, to the story's "inner consistency". And why do you refer to the story as a "subcreation"? Surely it is simply a creation.

Originally Posted by Raynor

As far as orcs not being treated (or at least expected to be treated) appropiately, I disagree; Tolkien stated in Myths Transformed that orcs were supposed to be treated with mercy ...

Can you give me any example of this occuring during LotR? Did Eru treat Orcs with mercy? Possibly, once they were dead. But allowing beings to be born within a disfigured body and a brutish, evil-serving society hardly seems merciful to me.

Originally Posted by Raynor

... then again, he identified orcs in Japan, Germany and even England who would behave truly evil

He may well have done. But, in my view, there are few instances, even (or perhaps especially) in war, where one might label a person as truly evil. Mostly, they are just human.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Err, I am not aware of such a statement; sure, he dislikes forced suspension of disbelief, but what he strives to achieve is to successfully reflect the Truth (the Christian one, I add) - that being the mark of a veritable fairy-story.

In the second version of the foreword to LotR, where Tolkien discusses the difference between allegory and applicability, he disavows the former but readily admits the latter.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I'd agree with that! I think we've discussed this one before - in the Trickster thread and in davem's Fairie thread, and it did seem that Tolkien's own version of Faerie missed out a lot of the elements that Faerie traditionally has, such as chaos and amorality. If you look at drafts of the Silmarillion in particular, you can see that over time, Tolkien de-Paganised much of what he had originally written.

Yes, on reflection, I rather think that I meant amoral, rather than immoral.

I agree with you concerning the parallels between Norse mythology and Catholicism. But Norse mythology is quite far removed from the (original) concept of Faerie, is it not?