the reason it's flawed... is because it's doubly definitive, i.e. drunk, e.g. the lord of the rings, it's drunk! it's an aquarium dizzy in sight! the definite lord cannot be an analogue, a replica, a cloning, an imitation... invoking such demands would counter the success of the story... for no divisive act can follow a divisive act in english grammar - backgammon point lost i.e. definite and divisive K.O... let me apply the rules... what symbols akin to mathematics could be applied to words as they are to digits in such a simple way as to modulate arithmetic rubric, if there be no grammatical rubric? engage in language to such an extent that it defeats you, in order to see the irrationality of others; the double definitive is the route easiest to spot - i guess it's worthy to mention the cinematic affair, that you might be mesmerised by a lord, who's the lord, and all the marriages under the sky: metaphor for marriage? not to mention that he was the omni- and invisible. cursor via this digression through to: there is need... for juggling... both hands must be present; definite indefinite, even odd... but i guess the lord of the rings, with its double-use of definite articles is like all stories sold to the public, sold meaning forced, ******... art conducted in the spare-time, art without gamble to live a life of modesty. find the weakness of your creativity, find the weakness of your creativity, and you will find creativity itself by it being exhausted, each time you begin the process of writing; with Einstein's space-time relativity came Rembrandt's spare-time relativity... art and plumbers... oh noble indeed... but still the double definitive of expression... there is necessary ambiguity to mind, an indefiniteness for exploration of universal interpretation whether that be the populace of the 17th or the 21st century needing it.