[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Then again, that would have left the island intact, as both the center of the empire, and, most likely, a place of corruption itself, given all the attrocities that were commited there and all the power Sauron spent in corrupting.

Well, if he was omnipotent, he could surely have removed the island as well, without killing any innocents. Although, with the corruption removed, I don’t see why the island should necessarily become a place of corruption again. Isn’t that rather like saying that the land comprising Germany should be removed from the face of the earth because it was once a place where terrible deeds were perpetrated? Of course, the fact that it was enticingly close to Valinor was a contributor to what happened, and we humans are not exactly known for learning the lessons of history. But isn’t that what free will is all about?

Originally Posted by Raynor

I take it from your statement "he could presumably have surgically removed the corrupt (and the corruptor) and left the Faithful" that in your variant there would be the same amount of victims as in the tale. Am I correct?

Not necessarily. I find it hard to believe that all those innocent of corruption escaped in the nine ships.

Originally Posted by davem

Point being: the Valar in this version did not destroy Numenor with malice aforethought, & therefore could not be held morally accountable - & those of us who have a problem with the 'official' version would not (i suspect) have such a problem with this one.

It would certainly be more consistent with the characterisation of Eru and the well-intentioned, but oft bumbling, Valar presented elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I think the crucial point is that we are not being told by Tolkien to accept the downfall of Numenor as 'good', or even as 'just' ...

Then of course we must remember that this is a story, that Eru is a fictional character, Numenor is a fictional place, and it is entirely up to us to decide if this fictional god is 'just' or not.

Quite so. Hence my freedom to view this deed as an unjust one. The problem that I have is not that I feel coerced into finding it a good or just deed. It is an issue of credibility and consistency. Eru’s act here is inconsistent with what I am being told elsewhere about him. So, in my desire for credibility and consistency within the works of a man I admire, I find myself being led to conclude either that Eru’s part in the downfall is misrepresented, or that he is not the paradigm of good that we are otherwise presented with and that the characters that believed him to be were mistaken.