[Hookbill the Goomba]

[Cross posted with Neithan Tol Turambar]

Originally Posted by Neithan Tol Turambar

define the cognitive system FOR YOURSELF of defining what exactly "etc." signifies.

Etc, to me, has always signified 'and more of the same follows' / 'the argument continues along the same lines but citation is unnecessary' and things along those lines. If you see what I mean...

Master Turambar, I have no problem with anyone liking a particular character on grounds of 's/he is interesting, amusing, intriguing or has views simelar to mine' although, there are other reasons for liking a character and it is entirely possible to like a character but disagree entirely with their ideology. But may I request at least toning down the belittling comments about your fellow members?

While Melkor may have had interesting points, been a devious and cunning character, he is not the sort of fellow I would like to meet. I'm sure you will agree that he was not exactly a kind person, reeking terrible deeds upon even his servants.

Tolkien also composed the quite contradictory Qoutes I took about the perceptions of Melkor and Sauron

Care to share them?

If I can speak from experience, when inventing a character, especially a villain, it is difficult to get one's mind into the right position. Thus, the thought process that goes into making a character often takes the form not of a step by step process, but more like blocks of thoughts. Not all of these blocks fit together perfectly and indeed this is better; real people are more complicated and will have differing things to say about different things, even if this appears to contradict something said earlier. For example, a man may refuse to be cruel to another, but have no problem using, say, information gathered from torture. This fellow may explain himself by saying, 'Well, the information is what matters to me. I would never hurt the blighter, but I will use what I have.'
Do you see my point? It's a difficult thing to articulate, really.
Any fictional character must be flawed if they are to be believable. That is where the unbalance in the blocks comes in, they provide the flaws which increase the character's... erm... character.

That's how I've always thought of it, anyway.

EDIT

Melkor had no choice but to be as Eru created him to be, the anger in his heart came from the knowledge that he must continue down that dark path, for the bonds that Eru laid upon him were strong indeed. To say that others are greater and better because they 'chose' good is only vanity

Ah! I see. You're fighting from a predestination theological point of view. Okay.
I cannot, of course, say anything with any full certainty because, like many of you, I am human and therefore not omnipotant.
Once again, as for Eru, we can only speculate theology based on Judaeo-Christian terms or simelar monotheistic theologies. What Tolkien's beliefs were we cannot say definitively because, for one, he is dead and second, we broke our last mind reader ray o matic.
The way I see it is this:
The idea of free will Vs predestine is, in it's essence, pointless. It is unknowable. The Bible give some glues both ways; God knows the plans he has for us and yet gives us a choice to follow or to reject him. Again I hesitate to go on because we are veering off topic and I would rather not arouse the fury of those more learned than myself.
C.S. Lewis, that great friend of Tolkien, said this:
"God created the universe already seeing the buzzing cloud of flies above the cross."
He also explains that God created creatures because, being love, he desires to give out love. These creatures must have the choice to love or not, otherwise it is slavery and not love at all.

But alas, we seem to be veering from the topic.