The editor edits, the publisher publishes (if the editor refuses, the publisher finds another editor). If there's a contract between publisher and author, the book is published (I'm guessing there's the standard clause requiring rights reversion if the book is not published within a set timeframe). The publisher declaring the thing unpublishable after accepting it is a clear-cut breach of contract.
What happened was this: Ace Paperback abused a loophole in US copyright law to bring out their pirate edition. Tolkien and his publisher were notified about this, so the publisher set about getting a properly authorised edition out, while Tolkien notified his fanbase in America of the problem. The resulting controversy made it into mainstream media, and made Tolkien famous. (Meanwhile, Tolkien referred to his fans as his "deplorable cultus", and commented that many young Americans were into the books in a way he himself wasn't. Basically, he found the concept of modern fandom simultaneously amusing, confusing, and annoying).
Not quite true. He also churned out Hawkmoon, Corum, Oswald Bastable, et cetera too, generally wasting interesting premises because he was trying to pay the bills in a hurry (IIRC his favoured method of writing novels in the 1970s was to plan for a week, take lots of Speed, and write the thing in a weekend). When he tried to write Literature with a capital L, he ran into the problem that the publishers kept wanting him to do more lucrative sword and sorcery instead.
But Tarrant isn't the main character. Damien is. You've got a decent, fundamentally good person (a priest no less) dealing with the moral difficulty of using a monster to defeat even worse monsters. Tarrant isn't morally questionable - he's out-and-out evil, just less evil than the actual antagonists. His incredible charisma means he gets away with it.
I don't think Grimdark is particularly useful as a term. Or at least useful as something other than a pejorative (to me it connotes the image of Dimmu Borgir sitting round a table playing Warhammer 40k - an attempt at dark fiction that has become a self-parody). I mean, C.S. Lewis literally kills off almost his entire main cast and destroys the world, but Narnia is not what you think of when the term Grimdark is used. Tolkien's Hobbit has the good guys squabbling over treasure, and LOTR has an on-screen suicide, a swamp of corpses, catapulted heads, and a hero who fails in his Quest (let's not even touch The Silmarillion). Neither is classically "Grimdark" (indeed, Tolkien gets denounced by Moorcock in his idiotic Epic Pooh essay). Really, I'd define Grimdark less by how dark the material is, and more by how self-conscious the darkness is. Is it simply throwing rape/murder/death at the reader in order to make itself more "adult"? This is what I mean by the use of Grimdark as a pejorative: it's a text that claims to be "dark, man, dark", as if darkness is an end unto itself.
Even if the NATO treaty is invoked, no-one is going to start WWIII on behalf of Turkey. Another reason why NATO is an abomination in a post-Cold War world. It's either completely ineffective or it brings about the apocalypse.
The Church in the inter-war period rejoiced at the Fall of Liberalism. Never mind the Pope, only a very small (and brave) number of Catholics cheered for the Spanish Republic against Franco. And then there's Salazar's Portugal, which was (even more than Franco's Spain) the poster-child for traditionalist Catholic authoritarianism. Vichy France too. Catholic Christian Democracy did not come out of the shadows until after WWII, when the old authoritarians were discredited. And the Church itself only got around to purging some of the truly obnoxious stuff (the traditional prayer for conversion of the Jews) during Vatican II in the early 1960s.
Depends. The Catholic Church's reaction to the Enlightenment was, well, full-scale reaction. It's no accident that formal Papal Infallibility doctrine only dates from 1870 - as the Church lost its grip on secular power (bye bye Papal States) it became ever more authoritarian in the spiritual sphere. Ultimately, what de-fanged Christianity wasn't even the Enlightenment. It was the Second World War - which made it really hard to push right-wing authoritarian ideas in mainstream public discourse. Before that, you had plenty of old-school religious reactionaries who wanted to turn the clock back to pre-1789.
I'd advise going with First or Third Person Limited - true omniscient (a la Lord of the Rings) is indeed harder than it looks, and actually quite rare these days. If you are still absolutely keen on it, here's an article: http://www.scribophile.com/academy/using-third-person-omniscient-pov
It's not a Reformation you want. The Christian Reformation erased the distinction between Church and State (which in the medieval period were rivals), so you ended up with the likes of Henry VIII becoming head of his own Church. To this day, the British House of Lords still has bishops as members (how's that for a secular west? Clerics in the legislature!). The Arab world simply needs to rediscover secular routes to solving its issues (which, amongst other things, means the West taking a far tougher line on Saudi Arabia, which promotes this fundamentalist nuttery).
Catholics are (1) Christian, and (2) account for over 20% of the US population, making the Catholic Church the largest single religious denomination in America. Worldwide, of course, Catholicism and Islam are the two largest religions on the planet.