[obloquy]

But the only thing in which she apparently surpassed Fearnor was beauty; in all the other gifts of the elven race, Feanor excels ("mightiest in skill of word and of hand, more learned than his brothers; his spirit burned as a flame"; "he became of all the Noldor, then or after, the most subtle in mind and the most skilled in hand").

What someone excels at is irrelevant when Tolkien talks about greatness. He uses the term without qualification when speaking of Melkor, Sauron, Feanor, Galadriel, Luthien, and others. He's talking about the potency of the spirit, the inner potential; how brightly the fire burns.

So, Tolkien's opinions on religious and moral truths that appear in his work have no weight for you?

That's not what I meant. I don't see LotR as a vehicle for lessons of the author. The fact that an event took place the way Tolkien relates it does not indicate to me that he wants me to learn something about the real world from it. Events occur in history not to teach lessons but because of the complex interaction of many free wills and chance. A lesson may be learned by examining the causes or effects of an event, but they are not discovered as a preconceived purpose for what occurred. Therefore, to me the Witch-King was destroyed because over many years things fell into place for it to happen, not because Tolkien engineered the encounter to teach us all something.

Obloquy, it is quite clear from Tolkien's Letters that he perceived LotR, the book, to be, partly at least, concerned with the "ennoblement of the humble", the weak prevailing over the mighty.

Perceived, yes. Intended? Maybe, I don't really know. It seems that things unfolded for him as he wrote much as they do in the real stream of time. In any case, that's the effect they have on me.

And your post was going so well up to this point. Ah well.

I assume you mistake me. I'll put it another way: I now have a better understanding than I once did of why I conflict so frequently and bitterly with certain posters.