 |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.fan.tolkien
From: "Aris Katsaris" <katsa...@otenet.gr>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 17:52:14 +0300
Local: Sun, Jun 3 2001 10:52 am
Subject: Re: The Truth About Balrogs - Volume 6
news:3B1A426F.C5F8499A@prodigy.net...
> Aris Katsaris wrote: > > > No, I'm merely stating a fact. The entire time that the Balrog fled > > You point? That's what "fleeing" is. You have an extremely strong > My point is obvious and terribly simple to understand. You're being character at that time. Gandalf said that the Balrog fled. If you are to doubt this, you can just as > > What??!? I mentioned all the possibilities you mentioned. Eliminate Physical laws have nothing to do with the question. them? I > > said that all these were 'possibilities', aka plot-holes that must be > > filled. You > > yourself said that when you said "We don't know the reason" That's the > > frigging > > definition of a plot-hole. > By that account, I suppose that Tolkien's work is chock full of plot > Gandalf's entire account of his battle with the Balrog "till at last he fled into dark tunnels." > takes up about a page of text. You conclude from that brief description that > the Balrog 'fled,' and that, therefore, his intent was escape. In fact, Tolkien > never uses the word 'fled.' > We know that the Balrog went in front and that Gandalf says his intent was fleeing. > Gandalf 'pursued' him. We do not know the Balrog's intent. > Nor do we have any Certainly, if one assumes that Gandalf's report was mistaken. If you take > specific data about what exactly happened during the entirety of that > 'pursuit.' You're drawing a very simplistic conclusion from extremely scanty > circumstantial evidence and trying to use Occam's razor to justify it. It may > make for a fine debating tactic, but it's just not a convincing argument. it as an assumption (as I did) that it was a correct report then it's a very convincing argument IMAO. > > We have to evaluate this argument by *itself*. We know that there exist IS IT?!? When trying to decide if a piece of evidence points to someone's > > other arguments, but this piece of evidence by itself support the no-wings, > > no-flight side. > Absolutely not! What you're saying here, if I understand you correctly, innocence or guilt, you don't start by assuming his guilt, and thus deciding what this piece of evidence means. Since we are trying to determine WHETHER the Balrog is described as winged Or we are "arguing backwards". > > All the "mays" of the flying-side are just-that - possibilities which case. make > > for > > a weak counter-argument. > On the contrary. All the 'mays' are the holes in your circumstantial My theory has nothing left to fill. He didn't have wings therefore he Those "mays" are irrelevant to the non-winged theory. > > > The only reason that Occam's razor has any validity in attempting to Except that the author doesn't always describe everything. In a story I > > describe > > > the universe is because things in nature tend to be simple, following the > > path > > > of least resistance. The same principle does not apply to fictional > > > constructs. > > Nonsense. Fictional cause-and-effects tend to be extremely more simple > Fictional cause-and-effects are extremely simple. They are what the wrote, I have someone leave from one place, arrive a half-hour later to another. Occam's razor demands that the reader understand he spent the half-hour in the transit inbetween *unless* the reader has reason to suspect otherwise. > > Why did Sting glow at the presence of enemies? Because the ancient elves Who's being deliberately obtuse now? Sting glowed when there were Orcs > > had the skill to make it so glow. > Sting glowed because Tolkien says it glowed. nearby. It glowed because Elves had it so built. Don't go meta- on me, so as to confuse the issue. > > > The 'pro-wing' camp would argue that he did, more than once. Conrad Nobody said it was. Just indications thereof. cited > > > several examples in his treatise which could be argued to indicate flight. > > "could be argued" being the crucial words. Flying dragons never had such > Yes, "could be argues," and has been argued, very reasonably, too. > > > But You are extremely rude. Please apologise. > > > I have no desire to debate the entire issue, especially since I'm arguing > > on the > > > wrong side of it. I stand by my original statement, which is that the > > claim > > > that the Balrog would have flown to safety when Gandalf cast him from > > > Zirak-zigil if he had wings is a weak argument. > > It's nice how you intentionally misrepresent the argument. The question > You're a fraud, sir! > I suggest you go back and re-read the original post to peak, > which you responded! I pointed out that Conrad hadn't addressed the argument > that the Balrog didn't simply fly away when Gandalf cast him from the You are either a liar or simply have a bad memory. "If the Balrog was NOT too wounded to fly it certainly should have 'When it first reached the peak' is half the point in there. > > It does *not* refer to when Gandalf cast him down. After all, Ancalagon No, it didn't. It simply said "It doesn't really matter whether was > > also > > cast down. > My post, to which you responded, referred *specifically* to when Gandalf or not the Balrog was wounded in the least, he must certainly have been exhausted. Flight requires a great deal of energy." Nothing about specifically when Gandalf cast him down. > > Absolute nonsense. As I said, it works better in fiction. The real world And no less true simply because you've constantly failed to bring up any > > doesn't > > need to make narrative sense. > Yes, you said it and you continue to repeat it. It's no more true now example that so supports your opinion of the Razor.... Aris Katsaris You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||