Debunking the Erl-King: A Reinterpretation

I believe that the poem "The Erl-King" is not a true tale of an Erkling attack but is instead merely a coincidental story made up from the author's imagination. There is several moments from both the lesson and the text that I feel shows my beliefs to be true. For example, as we learned in the lesson, Erklings lure children away with the express intent of eating them. However, at the end of the text, the child's father is said to be holding his dead child in his arms. Thus, it cannot have been an Erkling that attacked the child because it would not have left any bodily evidence behind!

Another example from the text that I feel supports my theory of the poem not being a true Erkling attack is when the father says, "My son, my son, I see it

clear". As we were taught in the lesson, Erklings cannot be seen or heard by adults and so it cannot have been an Erkling that the child's father saw. Also, in the text of the poem, it is mentioned that the Erkling uses physical force to ensnare the child. In the lesson on Erklings, we learnt that the Erkling uses a high pitched cackling sound to lure its victims away and generally does not have to resort to physical violence.

There is another example in the poem that I believe further shows that the text is not evidence of a true Erkling attack and that is the fact that the child speaks of 'the promise that the elf-king breathes in my ear'. I take this to mean that the 'Erkling' has spoken to the child and not, as the lesson teaches us, emitted a shrill cackling sound. The poem also mentions that the 'Erkling' has children of its own that it uses as bait, which is another reason that I feel that the tale is just pure coincidence.