Mansun, if it felt like anyone was ridiculing your opinion I apologize for myself, and the rest, because I'm sure that was not anyone's intent.
I've just been trying to get across
davem's point. It isn't the "Lord of the Bible," it isn't "Beowulf of the Rings," it is The Lord of the Ring's, a story of it's own. If you find similarities that's good, but I got the impression that you were saying Tolkien stole and/or borrowed from the Bible. Where I'm disagreeing because someone can certainly not see anything biblical related to the Lord of the Rings, and still be just as 'right' as someone who does.
Quote:
|
Equally dangerous to free thinking is to say "Elrond is Elrond and should only be seen as Elrond. No outside connections, coincidental or not, should be considered, even if only for amusement."
|
Fea, you have been saying some wise and truly cogent remarks but this time I'm going to actually have to disagree with you. If someone has no desire to make connections to the 'real' life, or the 'real history,' that's perfectly up to them. If they only look at Elrond as Elrond of Lord of the Rings, I don't see how that is 'dangerous to free thinking.' It makes me wonder how boring this person's life is that he/she couldn't possibly have found a 'connection,' but it's not dangerous to how anyone else thinks of Elrond.