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.

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] BearGun@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] BearGun@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 day ago

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.