the is my anylisis of an essay

      The author uses many of styles that we have learned in school to try and prove his point. He starts with a clear explanation as to what and why he is writing. His whole argument is based on logical examples to prove how Lord of the Rings has a religious back ground. He knows his audience as readers as he clearly explanations without going into unneeded detail. He first uses the author's background as proof, then used what is in the text to proves that the book has religious meaning, like with the bible. His way of showing that it is possible, and then proving it was well done. It showed that he was not just seeing things in the text, but what could be there unintentionally by the author. He then goes into the characters words and action, to show the ideas that are commonly held to appear in the bible. He holds the text together well by going in order with the loss of Adam and Eve, Cain and Able, and then Jesus himself. He sets up each to be compared to the major characters to show that the parallel goes beyond a few lines. The fact that he uses the author to show that there is a relation is something that I have never heard about, and it does work well to hold the piece together. It keeps the writing together, and makes it more cohesive. He has a very informal way that make his point clear and easily understood. In the conclusion, I was always told to never use any proof, or anything else, just to recap what you had already said. He does bring himself as a creditable source in that he did the research, with the bible and then digging into the authors history. There are no problems with the context, and the format of the essay is very interesting,. He states a given thing, and then proves it in the various characters. It allows the assumption by the reader that there is more then what he offered. He goes in to bring up a lot of the proofs that he offered earlier, and even adds it to more characters. It brings a feeling of completion to the whole essay, and offers that one last bit of power to the work.

           The other thing that should be noted that he is not trying to prove that one should read the book with a religious out look. He is merely trying to say that if one were to look at it in a religious lens, that there is merit in doing so. The examples he offers are not proving that it is there, but merely showing that it could be there. He does not tell you to read it that way, but shows what one would find if they decided to. That adds to his credibility because it is examples of what could be found, and showing the merit to read it under that light. It is very well done, and the argument is written out clearly and could be understood by anyone. It is a very different way of writing then we are thought, in which we prove idea and put ideas into the book, where he is only saying that it could be seen this way.