[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien contradicts himself - Death, in the mythology is a 'gift'.

I don't see that; although I don't completely understand that passage, it seems to me that it refers to how the Men of M-E, tainted by the lies of the Enemy, perceive Death.

As far as Tolkien is concerned he stated that Death is not the Enemy, and that through the taste of it alone can "what you seek in your earthly relationships (love, faithfulness, joy) be maintained, or take on that complexion of reality, of eternal endurance, which every man's heart desires".

Originally Posted by Letter #208

But certainly Death is not an Enemy! I said, or meant to say, that the 'message' was the hideous peril of confusing true 'immortality' with limitless serial longevity. Freedom from Time, and clinging to Time. The confusion is the work of the Enemy, and one of the chief causes of human disaster.

When Eru acts we require it to be so - Eru as the putative source of the Moral Value System of M-e must act in accordance with it - but if he is doing so in this instance then this MVS is not one based in absolute good - not in the sense that we would understand it.

I already argued that the inhabitants of Numenor, who were not part of the Faithfuls, were corrupted by Sauron beyond healing within Arda, and that death for them was a gift. However, I can happily do even without that argument, as I don't see why such deaths should be justified anymore than any other death, regardless they way it occurs. As far as I know, any religion unequivocally depicts God as holding the right to deal death. The same happens here; why should one need to justify one or more deaths, if the very fact that 100% of all Men will have the same fate is accepted a priori? At most, I could see this case structured around how or when one would die, but any such criticism would require complete knowledge of that person's doom, merits or lack thereof, and what further compensations await after death, or in Arda Healed - and no such information is available to us.

Of course, Tolkien seems to contradict himself in these statements

I don't see it as a contradiction per se; there were simply two impulses at play, his desire to make a story for children and his fascination with the Silmarillion, which intertwined in the writing of TH.

This is not a question of 'relevance', but of perception & 'understandability'.

But this is exactly the point. I see nothing worthwhile in enumerating what various interpretations some readers would give (and the number / percentage of said readers is a complete mystery), especially if said readers don't have the author's last intended work, and if, in either case, they fail to notice Tolkien's implicit references to moral and religious truth.