[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

This is debatable. There are numerous references in LotR to things that are "meant" to be; by whom? It is never stated baldly that it is Eru, for to do so would do violence to the story the way Tolkien intends to tell it, but the reference is there nonetheless; regardless of whether one agrees that this is Eru, the burden of proof is on those who would argue that it is not Eru.

Have to admit that those statements struck me as referring to something along the lines of 'wyrd' when I first read LotR, & that is how I tend to read them now.

To suggest that Eru is a weapon of mass destruction wielded by the Valar doesn't work, for then one is saying that the Valar control Eru, which cannot be. Thus the analogy breaks apart. Eru is more than a mere weapon. Point of fact, this is a derogatory statement that is rather offensive to the theists amongst us.

I was talking about the way his intervention comes across to the reader. As for it being 'rather offensive to theists' I would hope everyone here can distinguish between criticism of an invented character in a work of literary fiction & the Creator of the Universe - 'cos I'd be seriously worried about anyone who couldn't. Eru is a character invented by Tolkien, just like Frodo, Gollum, Wormtongue & the fox in the Shire. I will not treat him with any more 'awe' & reverence than I would treat any other character, or place him above criticism. Eru is a poorly drawn & undeveloped character who plays a minor part in the story.

Only if one fails to accept that Eru can be perceived behind the scenes all over the legendarium.

Or chooses not to

If this is the case, why does Tolkien insist on keeping Eru in the story? Why does Tolkien redact theism back into the story that has achieved a 'much higher, more mythic' atmosphere? Why is he not satisfied with that which he produced in the 1920's? If one were to posit that anything Tolkien wrote after the 1920's, is unnecessary, what does that remove? Are we sure we would want to live with such a reduction? It is a very dangerous game to play (and rather foolish, frankly), picking a particular period of an author's writing (especially an early period!), and saying, this is the real thing.

I don't think I did that at all - though I note in passing that the later works like the Athrabeth with its 'supposed' closeness to Christianity in the passing reference to Eru's incarnation is often dragged up to support the theory that the Legendarium is an 'essentially' Christian work (even though Tolkien expressed his discomfort with it as being too close to a parody of Christianity). I've stated the reason why I think Eru was kept in the story - to keep it monotheistic. It is a monotheistic universe - my gripe is that the 'God' Tolkien presents us with is a shallow, undeveloped & not very interesting character.

One is left wondering if this is the desire of certain readers.

Well? Some may do - I don't see it as any more of a problem than wishing any character in any literary work had been written out.

Highly debatable again. It depends on what a reader is willing to acknowledge is Eru in action, and what is not.

Some posters sometimes reveal more about themselves than they do about their subject. All in all, this particular post is loaded with unsubstantiated opinion that is debatable at best, uses dangerous and unwise choices in literary analysis, and lacks basis in evidence.

Well, I thought we were here to debate. I also thought it was pretty clear that I was expressing my opinion. How 'choices in literary analysis' can be ''dangerous' though, is beyond me. Its characters in a book we're discussing here.