The Tolkien scholars Shelley Saguaro and Deborah Cogan Thacker write that while it might seem that Tolkien is using trees and forests mainly to represent the natural world, as against the industrial modern world, they are rather a multi-layered portrayal, with subtle links to fairy tale and folklore, and complex psychological symbolism. They note that forests recur in fairy stories, as places where the protagonist becomes lost, where witches and woodcutters and wolves live. They recall that in Tree and Leaf, Tolkien's account of fairy tales, such stories are in his words unanalysable .. outside Time itself maybe. They mention the psychoanalyst Bruno Bettelheim's interpretation, that going into the forest signifies a psychoanalytic space - a place separated from everyday experience in which to be lost is to be found, and Jack Zipes's alternative view, based on his analysis of the Brothers Grimm, that the forest makes enchantment possible, because the conventions of society do not apply there. They note, too, Tolkien's own position, which is that the primeval human understanding was, as he wrote in Tree and Leaf, communion with other living things, now lost. They cite Tolkien critic Paul Kocher as stating that Middle-earth is meant to be the Earth itself in the distant past, when the primeval forests still existed, and with them, a wholeness that is also now lost. As for Mirkwood, they write, its role in The Hobbit is both to be the dark forbidding forest of fairy tale as Bilbo pursues his quest as in a classical quest narrative, and to have the familiar qualities of a real wood. The forests and trees of The Lord of the Rings are, however, much more complex: trees may change, whether by being woken up by Elves as were the Ents, or going bad like some of the trees in the Old Forest.