[davem]

Originally Posted by Tar-Telperien

To me, Nordic values and Christian vision (Eru is not like the Christian God, but his "feel" is Abrahamic, I will definitely admit that) put together make for a stronger metaphysical background than either would alone. However, that's simply the way I see things.

Of course. The problem I have with the character is its 'primitiveness' & 'simplicity' (in a bad sense). The character lacks the necessary depth & complexity to sit well in the developed Legendarium. I still feel this is Tolkien's motivation in the Athrabeth - not to bring the Legendarium into line with Christianity, but to try & salvage the character. To go back to the edit in my last post - if Tevildo had not evolved into Sauron he would either have had to be removed from the Legendarium altogether, or take on a role like Shelob.

Tolkien puts no real effort into developing the character because he doesn't need to - Eru's role is so minor that he might as well not exist other than as something that prevents things sliding into dualism. As long as there's something there which stops that happening (even though most readers will not care one way or the other, being caught up in the story) it doesn't really matter what that thing is - call if Eru & forget it. Yet it still becomes a problem as the Legendarium outgrows such simplistic figures & so Eru has either to be forgotten altogether, replaced, or changed into something else. The Athrabeth seems Tolkien's attempt to do just that.

Tolkien understood that the only way to begin a proper allegory is for a whole to be divided.

But its not an allegory. Its Art, & Art either works or it doesn't. And Eru isn't 'divided', he continues to exist, seperate from what he creates. Yet even conceding your point it still leaves Eru as a plot device rather than a fully developed character. He serves the purpose he is designed for & can then be safely forgotten. Say the Singers stepped forth from the Void, or sang themselves out of the Void & you have the same effect.