[Raynor]

Originally Posted by TSpM

I am saying that the Letters are generally inconclusive as to his intention.

Well, I see you repeating this, but I see no valid reason given for their inconclusiveness. You mentioned that they are sometimes at odd with each other or the work - yet this occured due to the changes that happened to the work in progress. At some points in time, he had certain "feelings" about how the work would proceed, which didn't make it in the final form; that isn't, per se, an inconsistency. Moreover, even if such inconsistencies exist in some cases, that is no reason to call those letters in question as inconclusive to showing his mind at that moment; even more, even if so, the "hystorical" type of inconclusiveness of some letters (due to the changing aspect of his work), if it exists, shouldn't be extended to other letters, in which he expressely states his intent - that would be guilt by association, a logical fallacy.

But the imposition of the parallel between the secret fire and the holy fire is not only unnecessary for the success of the story (qua story), but it is wholly at odds with "inner consistency", since it requires the imposition of a concept external to the story. If you wish to find "meaning" within LotR by equating the two, that's fine. But I think that you are wrong to suggest that it is necessary, or even complimentary, to the story's "inner consistency". And why do you refer to the story as a "subcreation"? Surely it is simply a creation.

Why is it wrong to suggest such a thing? I see a union between his work, this world and the christian mythology; the later two are real, according to him; about the first one, he whishes it to be real - obviously, real in correspondence with the world and Christianity.

As about creation and subcreation, I use this term because this is the supreme artistic achievement for Tolkien - a successful writer is a veritable sub-creator, whose Art reflects God's Truth.

Can you give me any example of this occuring during LotR? Did Eru treat Orcs with mercy? Possibly, once they were dead. But allowing beings to be born within a disfigured body and a brutish, evil-serving society hardly seems merciful to me.

Frodo compares Gollum to an orc and states that he deserves death; Gandalf agrees about deserving (and the comparison, I might add) but also states that one should not deal out death in judgement, and that Gollum (and the orcs, by my extension) have a chance, however slight, of repentance. Is the life of orcs one of continuous unhappiness (at least to them)? I doubt it; they certainly derive pleasure from their fetishism with machines, or with whatever cruel art or deeds - no single race in Arda experiences only pleasure or only pain. The orcs may not even be held culpable for what they did, if they are indeed gifted with souls and not just (reduced to) beasts.

I would also like to mention the existence of sin in his creation (Myths Transformed):"Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations. It is not sinful when not willed, and when the creature does his best (even if it is not what should be done) as he sees it - with the conscious intent of serving Eru".

In the second version of the foreword to LotR, where Tolkien discusses the difference between allegory and applicability, he disavows the former but readily admits the latter.

It seems to me, firstly, that Tolkien was choosing between the less of wto evils, allegory and aplicability. Though subtle, the difference between inviting to applicability and accepting it bears huge influence to our discussion. If he does invite readers to anything it would be, in my opinion, the Christian Joy, the eucatastrophe - the apex of the story.

Actually, the author claimed that Frodo failed in his Quest. I disagree with him on that.

I propose we put that into context:

Originally Posted by Letter #246

Frodo indeed 'failed' as a hero, as conceived by simple minds: he did not endure to the end; he gave in, ratted. I do not say 'simple minds' with contempt: they often see with clarity the simple truth and the absolute ideal to which effort must be directed, even if it is unattainable. Their weakness, however, is twofold. They do not perceive the complexity of any given situation in Time, in which an absolute ideal is enmeshed. They tend to forget that strange element in the World that we call Pity or Mercy, which is also an absolute requirement in moral judgement (since it is present in the Divine nature). In its highest exercise it belongs to God. For finite judges of imperfect knowledge it must lead to the use of two different scales of 'morality'. To ourselves we must present the absolute ideal without compromise, for we do not know our own limits of natural strength (+grace), and if we do not aim at the highest we shall certainly fall short of the utmost that we could achieve. To others, in any case of which we know enough to make a judgement, we must apply a scale tempered by 'mercy': that is, since we can with good will do this without the bias inevitable in judgements of ourselves, we must estimate the limits of another's strength and weigh this against the force of particular circumstances.

And let us also state the true mission of Frodo, from the same source:

His real contract was only to do what he could, to try to find a way, and to go as far on the road as his strength of mind and body allowed. He did that.