[XPhial]

While I have not read the book in question, I am quite wary of secondary sources without reference to original sources. Any book that makes connections between ancient mythologies MUST, in my opinion, reference the mythologies themselves. There are hundreds of versions of some ancient myths, often with disparate meanings. To make reference to a general myth without specific notes on version and original source is, to my mind, the same as saying something like, "To Americans rings mean love." While this may be true to some people, and even in general, I need to see what this is based on to be able to make a decision about its validity.

Tolkien, in his letters, denies the connection to the Wagnerian ring and states that any connection to ancient mythologies not Anglo-Saxon in nature are the product of either coincidence or unconscious memory. To try to analyse something as personal as Tolkien's unconscious seems to me to be folly. So, if you want a review of ring mythologies and a comparison to a created mythology, that's fine and interesting. If you're interested in the real thought process behind the creation of that mythology, then I suggest reading the Letters or other primary sources.