Yeah. I’m not sure why, from a narrative perspective, Tolkien choose to have Melkor destroy the world’s source of light (the lamps) and then have Melkor destroy the world’s source of light (the trees this time) again. I think it’s already clear that he’s the Dark Lord after the first time he does it, but maybe there’s some additional symbolism that I missed.
What is destroyed can be brought back but not in the same way. Destruction is not the end even though things won’t be the same after, probably a world wars reference of sorts.
Not everything needs to have deep/real-world meaning. As i recall, Tolkien really didn’t like people ascribing such things to his writing. They’re just stories and should be treated as such.
That’s true but stories come from somewhere and people are allowed their own interpretations (within reason). Once something is out in the world you can’t control how other people perceive it.
Absolutely, but calling it a reference implies that it was intentional by the writer, which seems unlikely considering what he’s said about such things.
They’re supposed to be the Two Trees from the Silmarillion.
Ah ok. I’m guessing the trees are after the lamps? Are they on the elf island?
I know the creation stuff, but not that much after it.
Yeah. I’m not sure why, from a narrative perspective, Tolkien choose to have Melkor destroy the world’s source of light (the lamps) and then have Melkor destroy the world’s source of light (the trees this time) again. I think it’s already clear that he’s the Dark Lord after the first time he does it, but maybe there’s some additional symbolism that I missed.
What is destroyed can be brought back but not in the same way. Destruction is not the end even though things won’t be the same after, probably a world wars reference of sorts.
Not everything needs to have deep/real-world meaning. As i recall, Tolkien really didn’t like people ascribing such things to his writing. They’re just stories and should be treated as such.
That’s true but stories come from somewhere and people are allowed their own interpretations (within reason). Once something is out in the world you can’t control how other people perceive it.
Absolutely, but calling it a reference implies that it was intentional by the writer, which seems unlikely considering what he’s said about such things.