I have to confess that I don't know anything about string theory! It's one of those things I keep meaning to learn more about. (I love theoretical physics in the very basic sense. I don't have the background in math to really understand it deeply but, man, it's one of my favorite things to read and think about. Hence the quantum-creation-archetype paper! :D I still have this dream that I'll bump into someone in fandom with enough background in quantum physics to read it critically, and they'll tell me, "Yeah, actually, that could work ..." Probably one of my less likely dreams, but that's what dreams are for, right?)

I love picking at the bones too, not in the sense of looking for direct borrowings (although they're there *cough*Turin*coughcough*) but in the more subtle, deeper influences of the myths and literature (and, yes, sometimes scripture) that most moved him. I don't know that Tolkien necessarily hated any/all bone-picking (although I agree with you that it doesn't matter either way; we don't need his permission to take certain approaches to his work! that's the risk he ran in publishing it). In the same letter to Mr. Wrigley, he went on to say, "To my mind it is the particular use in a particular situation of any motive, whether invented, deliberately borrowed, or unconsciously remembered that is the most interesting thing to consider." He seems to like fans analyzing (or making fanworks of) his work when he agreed with them and not so much when he didn't!

I agree with you re: the Music of the Spheres.

Thanks so much for reading and for your kind words! I feel like this is the topic I've done deep research on that I'm most comfortable with (meaning I'm not constantly turning up new approaches/information like with the historiography/bias and fan history stuff). It was fun to return to it. It makes me want to resume working with it again. ^_^