[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

As it happens, I can't incorporate my arguments into the books thread without breaking the flow, so I'll address some questions that have been raised here and let the rest slide. I don't propose to get bogged down in a long-running debate here. I suggest that any responses to this should go to PM or a thread in Books.

Originally Posted by me

Tolkien was trying to preserve a very delicate balance between his understanding of the Northern theory of courage on the one hand and his own religious views on the other

Originally Posted by Raynor

LotR shows little, if any, sign of ofermode. Aragorn, Gandalf & co are restraiend and wise; the hobbits, arguably the main characters, are as un-ofermode as you could get. Boromir could be an example, but he is not a main character; Theoden and Eomir could show this at Pellenor Fields, but again, this is singular of them, not necessarily descriptive of their nature.

Ofermod is an Old English word with a disputed meaning, but used in many contexts to mean 'pride'. In no way does it equate to the Northern ideal of courage, particularly as expounded by JRRT. It should always be borne in mind that this is just one word applied (either disparagingly, neutrally or positively, whichever expert seems most convincing) to one character (Byrhtnoth of Essex) in a single poem (The Battle of Maldon). The Northern heroic spirit is something far greater.

...that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe, which I have ever loved, and tried to present in its true light. Nowhere , incidentally, was it nobler than in England, nor more early sanctified and Christianized.

Letters #45. p.56.

The words of Beorhtwald [in Maldon] have been held to be the finest expression of the northern heroic spirit, Norse or English; the clearest statement of the doctrine of uttermost endurance in the service of indomitable will... Yet the doctrine appears in this clarity, and (approximate) purity, precisely because it is put into the mouth of a subordinate, a man for whom the object of his will was decided by another, who had no responsibility downwards only loyalty upwards. Personal pride was therefore in him at its lowest, and love and loyalty at their highest.

The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth. Section III: ofermod.

The Northern heroic spirit is about facing impossible odds simply for the cold comfort of having done the right thing. In order to achieve its full power this spirit must be faced with a situation entirely without hope, either in this world or the next; such as that of the Norse mythology, in which good and order are destined to be destroyed by evil and chaos. The philosophy against which Tolkien was attempting to balance this spirit was one which has at its centre the idea of an omnipotent deity, whose ultimate triumph over evil is assured, and who is capable of moving events invisibly, with millennia of foresight, to grant victory to the faithful. Tolkien solves the paradox by keeping the deity, but making Providence play a part only when hopeless situations are about to reach their inevitable conclusions.

Originally Posted by Raynor

The boldened part contradicts statements from the book or letters, which have been quoted at least once here, which express that idea in almost identical terms

No it doesn't. Those quotations say that small people can affect dramatically the policies of the great. They say that sometimes the actions of the small and unconsidered can have dramatic results in world events. They do not say that the small and weak can independently and unassisted defeat the great or overturn their policies, even tear down mighty empires. When the fate of the world rests on whether one good character shows mercy to one debased character, or who happens to find a ring in a tunnel, the small can make a difference. Bilbo's discovery of the ring has a devastating effect on the councils of the Wise, but that doesn't mean that he can waltz into Mordor and fight Sauron. Frodo's mercy to Gollum makes the difference between victory and defeat for the whole of Middle-earth, but that doesn't mean that he could have faced down the Nazgûl on his own. There are many apparent coincidences in the chain of events that lead to Sauron's downfall, but very early on Gandalf comes close to mentioning divine will.

Behind [Bilbo's discovery of the Ring] was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker. In which case you were meant to have it.

The Shadow of the Past

Originally Posted by Raynor

Unless the strong is impossible to defeat (which is not the case in Arda - there is no supreme, invicible power, besides Eru), then the weak can defeat the strong.

I would argue (and look: I'm doing it too) that someone's not being invincible does not open the field up to all comers to defeat them, at least not in single combat. Dover Castle can be demolished - reduced completely to rubble. It is therefore not invincible, but I can't destroy it with my bare hands or on my own. If this were true then Fingolfin would have been choosing a good spot for Morgoth's iron crown in his trophy cabinet before Eärendil had even been born.

Essex: I can't say that I share all of your responses, but I'm attached enough to the book to spend hours discussing it. Suffice it to say that in my understanding of LR grace must be earned, and requires as great an act of heroism as any victory it might grant.

I'm sorry to have kept this thread so far off topic. In order to avoid continuing to do so, I'd like any responses to be directed to other threads and/or PM. I shan't be responding in this thread again.