[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Or if we count the appearance of the Eruhini, the action of Eru's imperishable flame at the heart of the world, his converses with Manwe, all the other interventions Manwe saw in his vision and all the new things that appear in each new age, which dont have Ainulindale as their source. There is no single evidence that Eru stops being interested in creation, quite the contrary. Although this wrong belief is cherrished by Melkor and Sauron.

Eru is a remote figure. He is not directly involved in the action to any great degree. Where he does intervene his motives are obscure & cannot be attributed to anything other than aesthetic considerations in most cases.

I am really curious what means you have of judging a transcendent being, whether in a real or imaginary setting. That is a territory which neither science nor mind can enter. We don't know the purposes and the effects of actions - esspecially since he is the ultimate alchemist, able to transform his actions from divine punishments to divine gifts - or other's actions ("but it seemed that [Melkor's music's] most triumphant notes were taken by the other and woven into its own solemn pattern"). I am really looking forward to your answer.

One can judge any character (transcendent or otherwise) on their actions & what we know of their motivations. And if an author chooses to introduce a 'transcendent' being as a character one can analyse that character, the way it is used & whether it is convincing. It seems from your argument that you simply accept the character unquestioningly, without any analysis & take any statements made about it at face value without asking if they correspond in any way with what is known of that character. A writer cannot simply invent an omnipotent character who can do anything & ask his reader to just accept that character - anymore than he can just invent a character that pulls whole roast ducks out of his ears without giving a convincing explanation for how & why he does it & expect the reader to accept it.

It wasn't characters to state that, it were his own notes, in Myths Transformed. That you continue to disregard the position the author gives to certain characters in his own created world is your own choice.

Well, I'm sorry, but no author has the right to tell his readers not to judge his characters' actions or motivations - if he does that he is either seeking to dominate his readers or he knows that his characters' behaviour is illogical. I think its pretty clear that Tolkien found the actions of the Valar to be illogical in many cases, & oftentimes tied himself in knots trying to construct justifications for what they did - to resort to telling his readers 'you aren't allowed to make judgements about this character's actions', or 'you aren't smart (or enlightened) enough to understand what this character did' is incredibly patronising - & for the record I don't think this is what Tolkien meant those notes to mean - I think you misunderstand his intentions.

I really don't follow why you are using this "red herring" on me. I was initially talking about Melkor's power at the time when he started his subjugation of the matter of Arda, and now you are bringing the discussion to the end of this story.

Yeees, but you were answering a point I made, & in that point I was referring to Morgoth's final state, so I don't see how my reiterating my original point can be classed as introducing a red herring.

Yes, he was writting it with the purpose of reflecting a splinter of Light, hence the almost inevitability. I am afraid we both consumed this part of the discussion. We agree that marring was potentially there, but not yet manifest to the inhabitants of Arda. I propose we agree to disagree on how real the potential marring was and how un-real the un-marring state was.

But that's the central point - not something we can agree to disagree on. Either Arda was really 'marred' from the beginning or it wasn't.

An interesting thought. I would argue that, considering the vast differential of power between Melkor on one side (and possibly Sauron and the rest of the fallen maiar) and the Eruhini on the other side, that Eru's adamancy would extend solely to the second cathegory - they have little if any chances in fighting corruption.

Finrod clearly states that Eru will not allow himself to be deprived of any of his own - even by their own choice (hence they are not totally free, & if anyone wants to be free of him they will have their choice over-ridden by Eru - what does this tell us about the nature of Eru?). It seems that if we take Finrod's words at face value & do not analyse of question them, we must accept that we have here a clear statement of universalism, & that in the end everyone will be redeemed - including Melkor