# The eagles have come to war



## SmokeMonkey (Mar 24, 2004)

Now this is something that has always bugged me about the end of ROTK. I have noticed in many different forums that when it is suggested, or asked rather, why the fellowship did not just hop on the eagles and fly over Mt Doom and just drop the ring in the cracks? Many people always argue that the eagles have there own agenda and that they weren't really concerned with the on going war. Now I'm not disagreeing with this and I think it would have also made a pretty lame story if it would have happened this way, but I guess my question is: Why did the eagles show up at the battle in front of the black gate?

It seems to me that this is a contradiction to the previous statements that have been made about the eagle’s unwillingness to become involved in the affairs of the peoples of Middle Earth. Was there something else in the book or in another book that I missed that could explain this? And again I’m not using the argument to say that I think the eagles should have flown over with the ring and dropped it into the cracks. That would have been a pretty boring story.


----------



## rs691919 (Mar 24, 2004)

I think you hit the nail on the head; that would have been a pretty boring story. Of course, one can come up with all sorts of reasoning, but probably in the end it returns to the plot of the story. What I've always felt is that Sauron would certainly notice a couple of eagles thundering their way toward the Sammath Naur and would then be able to deal with the intruders quite easily.


----------



## SmokeMonkey (Mar 24, 2004)

You missed my question though, Why did the eagles come to war at the black gate?


----------



## Ithrynluin (Mar 24, 2004)

Almost always, the eagles appear to salvage something precious. They are instruments of Manwe, king of Arda under Eru Ilúvatar. They interfere only at the most crucial moments, and let the people of Middle-Earth learn their lessons for themselves. The same pattern appears with the Istari, who were meant to counsel, instruct and unite - not fight Sauron directly by themselves.

When Fingolfin was slain by Morgoth, the eagles emerged and clawed at him. They did not do the actual fighting in Fingolfin's stead.

At the Morannon, the eagles came primarily to save Sam and Frodo, who would otherwise have been doomed to die on the slopes of Mount Doom, surrounded by molten lava. The eagles did not do the actual fighting against Sauron's armies.

An eagle bore Glorfindel's broken body away, so as not to be defiled and dishonoured, but buried with honour. Again, the eagles only did something seemingly miniscule, as opposed to the main struggle which was carried out by the people of Gondolin.

Examples like this abound. Tolkien would not just have used the 'it would have been a pretty boring story if the eagles did everything' excuse. He gave perfectly good arguments to make his mythology make sense.


----------



## rs691919 (Mar 24, 2004)

That's an interesting point, one that I've never considered fully in the context of _The Lord of the Rings_. The Eagles as instruments of Manwe is a conept that I've always place in the _The Silmarillion_, but it certainly does fit LotR as well, and it is a better explanation than a plot device. 

However, SmokeMoney makes a good point as well about the Eagles coming to fight at the Morannon. They do not end up fighting, but that seemed to be their original intent--consider that when they arrive, they are poised to pounce upon the Nazgul's flying steeds who at that moment turn and speed back towards Orodruin. It is only after Gandalf speaks to them that they actually fly to save Frodo and Sam; so I'm not sure, then, that their arrival was _mainly_ for the purpose of saving the Hobbits.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Mar 24, 2004)

Whether they _consciously _arrived with the intent of rescuing Sam and Frodo is irrelevant IMO. They may have simply been ordered to arrive at a precise moment and await any orders from Gandalf, the emissary of Manwë. I don't think they arrived to do battle - their assault on the Nazgul seemed to me more symbolic, especially since the Nazgul _at that very moment _turned away and fled towards Mount Doom. I think the arrival of the eagles was (and not only in this case) precisely planned and their timing was never a coincidence.


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 24, 2004)

I have always been a little disturbed by the eagles convenient arrival. I merely accept it and think that Tolkien was writing a sort of parallel with the climatic battle in The Hobbit where the last thing Bilbo hear's before losing consciousness is "The eagles are coming." (Indeed, direct reference is made to the parallel in LOTR.) And of course, as has been said, Tolkien needed some handy way to rescue Frodo and Sam from Mount Doom without burdening the story with a long rescue mission marching across Mordor to recover their bodies. Tolkien was obviously aware of the problems since in his letter about the treatment for a cartoon version of LOTR written many years ago he complained about the writer over-using the eagles. I don't have the letters in front of me, but I believe he said something along the lines of the danger of pressing the eagles too hard as a plot device.


----------



## SmokeMonkey (Mar 24, 2004)

> I have always been a little disturbed by the eagles convenient arrival. I merely accept it and think that Tolkien was writing a sort of parallel with the climatic battle in The Hobbit where the last thing Bilbo hear's before losing consciousness is "The eagles are coming." (Indeed, direct reference is made to the parallel in LOTR.) And of course, as has been said, Tolkien needed some handy way to rescue Frodo and Sam from Mount Doom without burdening the story with a long rescue mission marching across Mordor to recover their bodies.


 You basically hit on the true heart of my question. I just think that it always seemed a bit to easy for me also. The eagles only show up when there is absolutely no way for the person to get out of there problem, i.e. gandalf in orthnac (i spelled it wrong i know i'm at work and don't have the book in front of me for spelling). It not that I have a problem with them showing up, I just wish there was a bit more explanation


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 24, 2004)

SmokeMonkey said:


> You basically hit on the true heart of my question. I just think that it always seemed a bit to easy for me also. The eagles only show up when there is absolutely no way for the person to get out of there problem, i.e. gandalf in orthnac (i spelled it wrong i know i'm at work and don't have the book in front of me for spelling). It not that I have a problem with them showing up, I just wish there was a bit more explanation


At least with Gandalf at Orthanc Tolkien had the eagle show up because it was sent by Radagast. Even at the end of The Hobbit it could be argued that the eagles were just another army at the Battle of Five Armies. At the end of LOTR they just sort of appear.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Mar 25, 2004)

> _The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien; #210_
> The Eagles are a dangerous 'machine'. I have used them sparingly, and that is the absolute limit of their credibility or usefulness. The alighting of a Great Eagle of the Misty Mountains in the Shire is absurd; it also makes the later capture of G. by Saruman incredible, and spoils the account of his escape. (One of Z's chief faults is his tendency to anticipate scenes or devices used later, thereby flattening the tale out.) _Radagast_ is not an Eagle-name, but a wizard's name; several eagle-names are supplied in the book. These points are to me important.


Not much more can be found in the Letters regarding this. 



> At least with Gandalf at Orthanc Tolkien had the eagle show up because it was sent by Radagast.


I don't see what the big deal is. So the eagles need to be sent by an actual Middle-Earth person for their appearance to be plausible or believable within the story?



> Even at the end of The Hobbit it could be argued that the eagles were just another army at the Battle of Five Armies.


I think in all cases it could be argued that they were commanded by a higher authority i.e. the Valar or Eru himself, being servants of Manwë who is closest in counsel with Eru.


----------



## Confusticated (Mar 25, 2004)

> The eagles only show up when there is absolutely no way for the person to get out of there problem, i.e...


I'd add that the people or person involved has gone to extraordinary lengths and has given it his best for some great purpose. Whether anyone knows at the time for great that purpose is or not.

In the case of the rescue of Maedhros by Fingon, I believe Manwe's pity for the Noldor, if that is what it was, was not simply aiding two Noldor, but was aiding the Noldor on the whole. I do not think he would have sent the eagles if not for the impact this rescue was going to have in calming the friction between the houses of Fingolfin and Feanor.

I actually view Thorondor's rescue of Fingolfin's body as a small hint in favour of the arguement that Fingolfin's intent was not suicide. He went there was a purpose, a single one... to kill Morgoth.

I have to agree that the Gwaihir and them showed up at the Morannon to rescue the ring bearer. What could have come of Frodo's spirit had he died in Orodruin? Great deeds are often rewarded in Arda. 

Could it be Gandalf summoned him... _Gandalf's eagle_?



> Even at the end of The Hobbit it could be argued that the eagles were just another army at the Battle of Five Armies.


Maybe that is even want most the eagles thought. But if not for them the Ring would have almost surely fallen into orc hands.


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 25, 2004)

Ithrynluin said:


> I don't see what the big deal is. So the eagles need to be sent by an actual Middle-Earth person for their appearance to be plausible or believable within the story?


In a word, yes. For the most part Tolkien does not engage in _deus ex machina_ in The Hobbit or LOTR, except rather glaringly for the eagles at the Black Gate. There may well be lots of fantastic things, sometimes even magical things, that happen but for the most part they are consistent with the world of LOTR. Galadriel's gifts save the day for our hobbit heroes, but they had already been given and being elvish we could expect and accept their having "magic" properties (some of which had already been hinted at when they were given). Even when Frodo and Sam find water on their trip across Mordor and light seeps in from the breaking up of the cloud cover, we (the reader) know that Sauron's forces had been defeated before Minas Tirith -- that is the reason for the light -- and finding a tiny stream of water running down a mountainside is not outside the normal realm of possibility. Sam is sure that it is a sign and we also may feel that way, but it is not a blatant plot contrivance outside the realm of believability of either the real world or the world of Middle Earth. Even Gandalf being rescued by the eagle after defeating the balrog fits within the story because we are told Galadriel sent the eagle to look for him and of course eagles do normally soar around mountains. Off the top of my head I can think of no other blatant instance of _deus ex machina_ in LOTR, except for the eagles at the Black Gate, where we are not given *some* explanation for a convenient event.



Nom said:


> Maybe that is even want most the eagles thought. But if not for them the Ring would have almost surely fallen into orc hands.


But at the time The Hobbit was written, the Ring was just a magic ring and Tolkien hadn't even thought of the whole plot of LOTR.


----------



## Confusticated (Mar 25, 2004)

Greenwood said:


> But at the time The Hobbit was written, the Ring was just a magic ring and Tolkien hadn't even thought of the whole plot of LOTR.


If we look at that way, I agree. The eagles were just some talking birds who decided to help out and defeat the goblins who they hated. But personality I don't look at _The Hobbit_ in that way.

That the Morannon eagles are not explained in LotR can't be denied I think. The explaination I find most fitting isn't the sort of thing that could be simply stated at that point in the story. Maybe Tolkien's own ideas for why the eagles showed up could not be fitted in. And not just because that was a bad point in the telling for some excursion, but maybe the subject matter was something best left out of LotR? Anyhow, I agree it was convenient but unexplained in a way that is unusual for Tolkien. Only after reading past LotR did I get comfortable with it.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Mar 25, 2004)

SmokeMonkey said:


> Now this is something that has always bugged me about the end of ROTK. I have noticed in many different forums that when it is suggested, or asked rather, why the fellowship did not just hop on the eagles and fly over Mt Doom and just drop the ring in the cracks?



Simply because Tolkien didn't write it that way — he didn't _want it_ that way — he wanted it the way he wrote it in final form.

Now I am not being deliberately crass. But much of the speculative questions on this board come to precisely that answer. In fact I think that answer: That Tolkien's writings are the way they are because that is _precisely_ how he, after much deliberation, consideration, jiggering around of innumerable drafts and versions (See "The History of Middle-earth") _wanted_ them to be. I am sure that he would also want his readers to accept that, and would probably be exasperated over the endless poking and prodding that goes on about why things are this way and not that way. 

This is the answer that takes care of at least 95+% of all speculation, but most simply don't want to hear it, hence the innumerable "why-didn't", "what-if" and "how-come" threads that make up the majority of the Tolkien-related threads in our forum. (And evidently the questioners take great delight in such speculation.)

There are some letters in Humphrey Carpenter's printed collection of Tolkien's letters that state this very clearly, and there is a reference to it in his Introduction to LOTR.

(And this answer is the reason I rarely partake in speculative threads.)

Lotho


----------



## Confusticated (Mar 25, 2004)

Lotho_Pimple said:


> Simply because Tolkien didn't write it that way — he didn't _want it_ that way — he wanted it the way he wrote it in final form.
> 
> Now I am not being deliberately crass. But much of the speculative questions on this board come to precisely that answer. In fact I think that answer: That Tolkien's writings are the way they are because that is _precisely_ how he, after much deliberation, consideration, jiggering around of innumerable drafts and versions (See "The History of Middle-earth") _wanted_ them to be.


A look through HoME also tells us that he asked himself many of these same types of questions. This is a work of his imaination, and it captures the imagination of readers. No wonder many people who love Middle-earth like to wonder about things that didn't apear in text! Is it?



Lotho said:


> I am sure that he would also want his readers to accept that, and would probably be exasperated over the endless poking and prodding that goes on about why things are this way and not that way.


Wasn't his intention to capture imagination?

Because LotR is pretty much how he wanted it to be (he was not pleased with some things), us readers... should not? ...are wasting time with? ...are annoying when we? share ideas for answers to questions that may not be found in the texts?

Since when does most of the speculation have to do with why things are one way and not another? I haven't noticed this!



Lotho said:


> This is the answer that takes care of at least 95+% of all speculation, but most simply don't want to hear it, hence the innumerable "why-didn't", "what-if" and "how-come" threads that make up the majority of the Tolkien-related threads in our forum. (And evidently the questioners take great delight in such speculation.)


Most "why didn't" questions are not "why didn't Tolkien..." but rather _why didn't_ a charcter...



Lotho said:


> There are some letters in Humphrey Carpenter's printed collection of Tolkien's letters that state this very clearly, and there is a reference to it in his Introduction to LOTR.
> 
> (And this answer is the reason I rarely partake in speculative threads.)
> 
> Lotho




State what exactly, very clearly? That Tolkien would be exasperated to know that people like to share ideas about things left mysterious in Middle-earth?

Please tell which letter says anything of the sort.


Not everyone takes some kind of literary view of these books. For some they are a door to Middle-earth first and books second. Is one way of looking at them correct or superior over the other?


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 25, 2004)

Nom said:


> Only after reading past LotR did I get comfortable with it.


Unless a book is part of an ongoing series readers are not expected, and should not be expected, to "read past" the book itself. In the context of LOTR, the eagles at the Black Gate certainly feel like _deus ex machina_ to me (and apparently to other readers). I do not see why Tolkien could not have written a sentence or a paragraph or something that would have given some pretext, within the context of the story, for their appearance. Tolkien was certainly capable of it. I do not say that this makes Tolkien incompetent , just that it is an odd slip in his storytelling.

Personally, I am in agreement with Lotho that I find many of the speculative threads uninteresting and for that reason I don't take part in most of them. I do not, however, criticize those who do and I am delighted for those who get enjoyment from such things. We all enjoy LOTR in our own ways. I don't see any harm in people enjoying themselves in speculating about what would have happened if B had happened instead of A. As I said, for the most part I stay out of such discussions except when someone suggests something that seems to me is demonstrably against what Tolkien has written as possible either in LOTR or for a specific character. (For example, that Denethor coming into possession of The Ring would have set off to Mount Doom to destroy it.) For many of these speculations the answer that it would not have been much of a story done that way, seems to me, a perfectly valid response. (not wishing to be too much of a killjoy, I usually to do not give it since it is so self evident.)

To return to SmokeMonkey's original point, the eagles showing up at the Black Gate seems to have no good explanation within the context of LOTR.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Mar 25, 2004)

Greenwood said:


> Unless a book is part of an ongoing series readers are not expected, and should not be expected, to "read past" the book itself. In the context of LOTR, the eagles at the Black Gate certainly feel like _deus ex machina_ to me (and apparently to other readers). I do not see why Tolkien could not have written a sentence or a paragraph or something that would have given some pretext, within the context of the story, for their appearance. Tolkien was certainly capable of it. I do not say that this makes Tolkien incompetent , just that it is an odd slip in his storytelling.


The appearance of the eagles makes sense to me when viewing the legendarium as a whole. We are told in the Silmarillion that the eagles are servants of Manwë and they gather news for him. Eru intervenes at some crucial moment (such as the drowning of Numenor) and I see the eagles as 'extended fingers' of Eru. Take a look at this letter, for example:



> _Letters #181_
> The Quest was bound to fail as a piece of world-plan, and also was bound to end in disaster as the story of humble Frodo's development to the 'noble', his sanctification. Fail it would and did as far as Frodo considered alone was concerned. He 'apostatized' – and I have had one savage letter, crying out that he shd. have been executed as a traitor, not honoured. Believe me, it was not until I read this that I had myself any idea how 'topical' such a situation might appear. It arose naturally from my 'plot' conceived in main outline in 1936. I did not foresee that before the tale was published we should enter a dark age in which the technique of torture and disruption of personality would rival that of Mordor and the Ring and present us with the practical problem of honest men of good will broken down into apostates and traitors.
> 
> But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's own 'salvation' is achieved by his previous _pity_ and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainlybetray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time. *He did rob him and injure him in the end – but by a 'grace'*, that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing any one cd. have done for Frodo! By a situation created by his 'forgiveness', he was saved himself, and relieved of his burden. He was very justly accorded the highest honours – since it is clear that he & Sam never concealed the precise course of events. Into the ultimate judgement upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. This would be to investigate 'Goddes privitee', as the Medievals said. Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvellous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable.


Frodo failed at the end, and was saved by 'grace'. In the book, it does not say "Eru Iluvatar made Gollum fall into the chasm at that moment" and I do not find it any less appealing for that. Quite the contrary. I enjoy finding bits and pieces of information scattered throughout the HoME series and the Letters, and I prefer some things not being stated outright.

I suppose this is merely a difference of opinion we are having. You would have preferred to see a line or two about the reason for the arrival of the eagles, and I would not because I see sufficient evidence throughout this invented universe.


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 25, 2004)

ithrynluin said:


> The appearance of the eagles makes sense to me when viewing the legendarium as a whole. We are told in the Silmarillion that the eagles are servants of Manwë and they gather news for him. Eru intervenes at some crucial moment (such as the drowning of Numenor) and I see the eagles as 'extended fingers' of Eru. Take a look at this letter, for example:
> 
> Frodo failed at the end, and was saved by 'grace'. In the book, it does not say "Eru Iluvatar made Gollum fall into the chasm at that moment" and I do not find it any less appealing for that. Quite the contrary. I enjoy finding bits and pieces of information scattered throughout the HoME series and the Letters, and I prefer some things not being stated outright.
> 
> I suppose this is merely a difference of opinion we are having. You would have preferred to see a line or two about the reason for the arrival of the eagles, and I would not because I see sufficient evidence throughout this invented universe.


The LOTR, as with any other book, should stand on its own. A reader cannot be expected to have to rely on unpublished drafts and musings by the author in order for the plot to make sense. Even worse, in this case you are relying on posthumously published drafts and never meant for publication personal letters to justify a piece of the storyline.

As for the letter you cite I am quite familiar with it and some other letters on the same subject in his published letters. In the case of Frodo and Gollum at the Cracks of Doom, Tolkien laid the groundwork in a number of ways earlier in LOTR for what happens there. We have Gandalf's statement to Frodo that people should not be quick to deal out death in judgment and that Bilbo's pity in the end helped Bilbo himself resist the Ring. He also says that his own (Frodo's fate) may be tied up with Gollum's. We have Gandalf pointing out how hard that Frodo couldn't toss the Ring into his own little fire. We have all the evidence of the power of the Ring and its growing influence on Frodo as he nears Mount Doom. That Frodo could not destroy it in the end is not a great break with the story nad has ample warnings of the possibility. As for Gollum's taking it by force an falling in, there has also been considerable groundwork foreshadowing this. In the Taming of Smeagol Frodo has Gollum swear by the Ring and warns him the Ring will "hold" him to his word, but will also try to twist his word. Finally, we have Faramir's curse on Gollum that death should find Gollum quickly if Gollum betrayed Frodo. Thus Gollum was doomed from the moment he led Frodo to Shelob and his fate was certainly sealed when he actually laid hands on Frodo and bit off his finger. We may not have anticipated what happened (it would be a mark against Tolkien's writing if we "saw it coming"), but after the fact we can certainly see all the signs that we might have overlooked as we were carried along by the story.

Contrast all of the above with the eagles at the Black Gate. They just appear without a hint, either before or after, to explain their sudden and oh so convenient appearance. I am not saying Tolkien should have set up the eagle's arrival before they appeared (though some subtle hint would have helped), but even after the event a simple line explanation of Galadriel sending them (as she sent one in search of Gandalf after Moria) would have made their appearance seem a little less contrived.


----------



## SmokeMonkey (Mar 25, 2004)

> The LOTR, as with any other book, should stand on its own. A reader cannot be expected to have to rely on unpublished drafts and musings by the author in order for the plot to make sense. Even worse, in this case you are relying on posthumously published drafts and never meant for publication personal letters to justify a piece of the storyline.


 You make a great point there. But for me I don't mind reading other works to find out why certain things happen. In fact if you read my original post I asked


> It seems to me that this is a contradiction to the previous statements that have been made about the eagle’s unwillingness to become involved in the affairs of the peoples of Middle Earth. Was there something else in the book or in another book that I missed that could explain this?



And to Lotho: I clearly stated in my inital post that the eagles flying over and droping the ring into Mt Doom was NOT the reason for this post. In fact as I have stated this would make for a boring and rather short story. 

I can see it now _/cue wavy flashback screen_ 

Gandalf: You must take the ring to Rivendale Frodo
Frodo: Ok but could the eagles just take care of this for me
Gandalf: Ah yes the eagle..*smacks forhead* why didn't I think of that. Sure they'll just fly us over to Mt Doom and that'll be the end of that.
Frodo: Good, and will I have to leave the Shire for this or can you do that by yourself
Gandalf: I'll take care of it my dear lad

*Eagles fly off and save the day*

-----The End--------

I just wanted to know if anyone had a good reason why the eagles would show up like they did. I'm one of those people who like to know motivation behind peoples (or eagles) reasoning


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Mar 25, 2004)

Nóm said:


> A look through HoME also tells us that he asked himself many of these same types of questions....State what exactly, very clearly? That Tolkien would be exasperated to know that people like to share ideas about things left mysterious in Middle-earth?...Please tell which letter says anything of the sort.



I said PROBABLY. That's _my_ speculation. I certainly don't intend to get into an argument with you just because your view and values differ from mine. I simply posted why it is that I don't engage in what I call speculative questions.

And, as I said, such debate is obviously the sort of thing a large faction of posters take pleasure in, and that's fine — it's just not for me. 

If Tolkien makes a statement that seems to answer a question for me, that's good enough for me, I have no need to speculate further, I have the answer from the horse's mouth. Calm yourself!

Lotho


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 25, 2004)

SmokeMonkey said:


> I just wanted to know if anyone had a good reason why the eagles would show up like they did.


I am saying no; I don't think there is a good reason for the eagles showing up like they did.


----------



## Gildor (Mar 25, 2004)

SmokeMonkey said:


> I just wanted to know if anyone had a good reason why the eagles would show up like they did. I'm one of those people who like to know motivation behind peoples (or eagles) reasoning



There are plenty of 'good' reasons I suppose, however none of them happen to be explained in the book. Their sudden appearance never bothered me, it seemed easy to accept. Explaining it beforehand would have ruined the effect, and taking the time to explain it afterward would seem fairly trivial and anticlimactic compared to all the other events that were occuring. 

Perhaps the eagles were summoned, perhaps they had been watching and felt that they would be needed. Whatever the reason, the motivations of some of Tolkien's creatures are kept rather inscrutable, and that helps to reinforce their strangeness.


----------



## Witch-King (Mar 25, 2004)

You guys write too much lol. To put it simple, in my opinion, the eagles helped because if sauron would of won, he would evidentially destroy or corrupt them.


----------



## Dáin Ironfoot I (Mar 25, 2004)

ithrynluin said:


> The appearance of the eagles makes sense to me when viewing the legendarium as a whole. We are told in the Silmarillion that the eagles are servants of Manwë and they gather news for him. Eru intervenes at some crucial moment (such as the drowning of Numenor) and I see the eagles as 'extended fingers' of Eru. Take a look at this letter, for example:
> 
> Frodo failed at the end, and was saved by 'grace'. In the book, it does not say "Eru Iluvatar made Gollum fall into the chasm at that moment" and I do not find it any less appealing for that. Quite the contrary. I enjoy finding bits and pieces of information scattered throughout the HoME series and the Letters, and I prefer some things not being stated outright.
> 
> I suppose this is merely a difference of opinion we are having. You would have preferred to see a line or two about the reason for the arrival of the eagles, and I would not because I see sufficient evidence throughout this invented universe.


I believe the same, Ithy. Manwe, under Eru's counsel, intervened in the affairs of Middle Earth when ABSOLUTELY necessary. But this has always led me to wander (seeing the mention of Drowning of Numenor in your post) why an Eagle did not rescue Tar-Miriel from the wreckage. 

But that's a whole other can of worms!


----------

