H-I, I kind of hope we're not reaching a consensus, as I'm enjoying this (I won't speak for anyone else having this inflicted on
)
As to Fea & Hroa. The point is, the existence of the Fea is not dependent on the hroa, but the hroa is dependent on the fea. The hroa can die, but the fea does not also die, so fea is dominant - even to the extent that it will eventually burn away the hroa. So, fea can exist without hroa, but hroa cannot exist without fea. Which means that fea, even in elves, is dominant, because it proceeds directly from Eru, which hroa does not. So the being's nature is more truly expressed through Fea rather than hroa, which serves it, rather than being an equal partner.
As to subcreation - why do Elves not invent stories? They seem merely to reiterate the past, & attempt to re-create it - another example of their inability to think & act 'outside the box'? Men can invent stories, sub create 'secondary' worlds which never existed in the 'primary' world - as Tolkien does with ME- which reflects a freedom of thought, & hence of action, which is not found in Elves.
Even if Eru has to make their sub creations 'real, give them form, it doesn't mean he originated them, merely gave them form. The alternative would be to make men a kind of aspect of Eru, Men are the part that think the thoughts & Eru the part that makes them 'real' within Arda.
As I said, the later writings are a problem - in the Athrabeth, the early statement that the fall of man is off stage & in the background is turned on its head, & placed centre stage, & the main reason for Eru's incarnation. We end up with a change from one of Tolkien's primary concepts - Death as a 'gift' becomes death as a 'realease from suffering'.I ts the same with a lot of the stuff in Myths Transformed, which is an attempt to force the Legendarium to fit with modern scientific notions