[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I disagree; this view would ignore all the turns of events, as we, or even the characters see them, that show the finger of God. Ignoring the underlying, invisible, struggle between higher good and evil is, imo, ignoring the logic of this universe.

I'm not ignoring the underlying struggle between good and evil, but if we take the LotR alone, then it's not clear where 'good' comes from. It's just there. You can feel that there's some "higher force" behind certain events, but though it's clear what Tolkien meant that to be, I don't think it is unambiguous to an unbiased reader.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Although hobbits are repeatedly referred to as vulgar, I don't think that 'vulgarised' forms of referrences are necessarily void, in general - and esspecially in this particular case. We even see that the opposite is true in the cases of Denethor and Saruman - they are supposed to have the highest knowledge among Men and Istari, and still, they fail in hope and turn into weapons of evil. Frodo was raised by Bilbo, who in turn was in contact with the elves of Rivendell, and visites them even after the quest from the Hobbit; Gandalf also had him under his protection and guidance; given the logic of the story, I believe he had a spiritual sense of good and wrong.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Of course vulgarised forms aren't necessarily void, but these particular instances occur when Sam fears Gandalf might turn him into something unnatural and when Merry complains about the mess in the bathroom. Both scenes have a very nice comedic value. There are many non-comical and non-vulgar scenes including hobbits, all of which don't contain references of this kind.
Neither does the knowledge of Saruman and Denethor lead to good, nor does the ignorance of the hobbits lead to evil. They can have a feeling for good and evil nevertheless, just like Child put it. Frodo's above average knowledge (hobbit-wise) of things makes him a wiser person, but not necessarily a better one.

Originally Posted by Raynor

In the end, I guess a book reflects the reader; some aknowledge elements Tolkien put and intended to be seen and some don't and what is "objectively" close to a correct interpretation changes from age to age and place to place. I, for one, contently accept the professor's view.

I guess there are just more than one valid interpretations of the work, Tolkien's own being one of them. Isn't that, after all, one of the reasons the LotR has found such a huge, and diverse, readership?