The Truth About Balrogs - Volume 6
Conrad Dunkerson
So you think you have the answer? It is all so clear to you? There
is a passage in the books which clearly proves once and for all that
Balrogs did/did not have wings? Could or could not fly?
Chances are it has been brought up before and the debate still
rages. Before jumping in and 'proclaiming the obvious' you might
want to check the list of arguments below. I've attempted to capture
as many of the common ideas as possible, and yet I've surely still
missed many. However, this material should serve as a strong
foundation in just why these questions remain matters of debate.
To facilitate in the use of this text as a reference (and also keep
it all straight in my head) I have grouped the arguments around
particular quotations that they relate to and listed these quotations
at the start of each section.
I. Its wings were spread from wall to wall
II. They passed with winged speed
III. Flying from Thangorodrim
IV. The shadow of the Balrog
V. The troll-guard of Gothmog
VI. In his train were Balrogs
VII. Ran down swifter than Balrogs
VIII. Out of reach of Orc and Balrog
IX. Had yet assailed the air
X. Whereby he might learn to fly
XI. They could see the furnace-fire of its yellow eyes
XII. Nor speaks of the 'wings'
I. Its wings were spread from wall to wall (aka The Bridge of Khazad-
dum)
It all begins with a single passage in LotR;
"The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the
darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and
suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were
spread from wall to wall..."
FotR, The Bridge of Khazad-Dum
Those who believe that Balrogs have wings often argue that the debate
should begin and end with this passage, but there is another just
before it which is the source of the opposing view;
"The Balrog reached the bridge. Gandalf stood in the middle of the
span, leaning on the staff in his left hand, but in his other hand
Glamdring gleamed, cold and white. His enemy halted again, facing
him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings."
FotR, The Bridge of Khazad-Dum
The argument here is that as this text states that the 'shadow' about
the Balrog reached out LIKE two vast wings it must be a simile and
thus not ACTUAL wings. As these 'wings' are thus taken for a simile
referring to the shadow the later reference to the Balrog's wings
being spread from wall to wall is considered a metaphor referring
back to this 'shadow which is like wings but is not wings'.
An example of this 'simile to metaphor' progression can be seen in;
"There the green floor ran on into the wood, and formed a wide space
like a hall, roofed by the boughs of trees. Their great trunks ran
like pillars down each side. In the middle there was a wood-fire
blazing, and upon the tree-pillars torches with lights of gold and
silver were burning steadily."
FotR, Three is Company
The passage 'great trunks ran like pillars' is a simile comparing the
tree-trunks to pillars of a hall ('roofed by the boughs'). Then
later the 'tree-pillars' are a metaphor referring back to these
trunks. The 'non-wings' view is that the 'shadow like wings' and
'wings from wall to wall' are a simile and metaphor in the same
relation.
Another example of this which is often cited comes from two lines in
RotK - Battle of the Pelennor Fields;
"...Easterlings with axes, and Variags of Khand, Southrons in
scarlet, and out of Far Harad black men like half-trolls with white
eyes and red tongues."
This shows a simile describing the "men" of Far Harad as being "like
half-trolls".
"East rode the knights of Dol Amroth driving the enemy before them:
troll-men and Variags and orcs that hated the sunlight."
Now these same beings are referred to metaphorically as "troll-men"
because of the earlier simile referring to their appearance. It is
sometimes argued that these might be two different groups; men of Far
Harad who were LIKE half-trolls and some other group of ACTUAL
troll-men. Likewise, a similar argument is sometimes put forward for
the wings; that the shadow was LIKE wings but that the Balrog also
had actual wings which were revealed later.
A variation of this later argument is sometimes called the 'vagueness
to clarity' view. Effectively, it suggests that Tolkien is saying
'the shadow was like wings' because it was dark and obscured and the
fellowship could not make it out. Then, when the Balrog came closer
Tolkien says simply 'wings' because they could now see it clearly.
An example of this sort of presentation is;
"Before his feet they saw a large round hole like the mouth of a
well. Broken and rusty chains lay at the edge and trailed down into
the black pit. Fragments of stone lay near.
'One of you might have fallen in and still be wondering when you were
going to strike the bottom,' said Aragorn to Merry. 'Let the guide go
first while you have one.'
'This seems to have been a guardroom, made for the watching of the
three passages,' said Gimli. `That hole was plainly a well for the
guards' use, covered with a stone lid."
FotR, A Journey in the Dark
Here the fellowship sees a 'hole like the mouth of a well'. Under
the 'simile > metaphor' view this would indicate that the hole was
NOT actually the mouth of a well... yet Gimli thereafter states that
it was. The purpose of the hole was originally vague, but then made
clear as they got closer and Gimli's experience was brought to bear.
There is a similar passage referring to wings and shadows;
"Suddenly a shadow, like the shape of great wings, passed across the
moon. The figure lifted his arms and a light flashed from the staff
that he wielded. A mighty eagle swept down and bore him away."
FotR, In the House of Tom Bombadil
This differs slightly in that the shadow is stated definitively, but
its SHAPE is described as being 'like wings'. The shape is unclear
and hence 'vagueness'. Then, when the eagle swoops down it is clear
that the shadow was indeed cast by wings though they are not
explicitly mentioned in this case.
These passages show that Tolkien used BOTH the 'simile > metaphor'
and 'vagueness > clarity' constructions, and thus the Balrog passages
could well have been either.
A final variation of the 'pro wings' explanation for the two passages
considered together is that the Balrog might have been changing
shape... at first it had no wings, but it began to form them in the
first passage and they were fully present in the second. The issue
of whether Balrogs COULD change their shape in this fashion was dealt
with separately in Volume Five.
It is sometimes possible to reach a certain degree of consensus on
the 'wings' question by agreeing that any shadow which was present
looked like 'wings' and any wings which were present were formed of
some sort of 'shadow'. A 'palpable darkness' which took the form of
wings either temporarily or always. Still, some believe that the
wings should be leathery flesh and blood rather than 'shadow-stuff',
and thus it does not work for everyone.
Note: I have left out the details of a common counter-argument which
says that the 'simile to metaphor' interpretation is self-defeating,
as every time I have seen it the argument has been based on an
incorrect application of the logic. The >Balrog< is said to be 'like
a great shadow', which would mean that 'the Balrog is not a shadow'
under the simile > metaphor reasoning just as this leads to 'the
shadow is not wings'. It does NOT mean that there is nothing LIKE a
shadow present any more than the shadow not being wings means that
there is nothing LIKE wings present.
Moving on to what this section says about the ability of Balrogs to
fly we find the usual evidence on either side of this point... that
is, not much of anything at all.
That the Balrog didn't fly is often suggested as evidence that it
couldn't fly. However, there are numerous objections presented to
this interpretation which will be detailed later in this document.
II. They passed with winged speed (aka The Hithlum Passage)
"Far beneath the halls of Angband, in vaults to which the Valar in
the haste of their assault had not descended, the Balrogs lurked
still, awaiting ever the return of their Lord. Swiftly they arose,
and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum, and they came to
Lammoth as a tempest of fire."
MR, The Later Quenta Silmarillion II
Once again the argument is simply that this passage should be read to
say that the Balrogs flew with wings. While this is certainly a
reasonable interpretation it is by no means a certain one. In the
absence of outside confirmation the opposing view (that this passage
indicates that the Balrogs 'arose' from their long wait or the
'vaults far beneath Angband', traveled very quickly through Hithlum
and arrived in Lammoth wrapped in their flames) is equally
reasonable.
The key terms suggesting flight are 'arose', 'passed over', 'winged
speed' and 'tempest'... each of which CAN be taken as indicative of
flight, but each of which is also used in other ways;
AROSE
"Now the Lady [Galadriel] arose, and Celeborn led them back to the
hythe."
FotR, Farewell to Lorien
"At length they [Aragorn and company] arose, and took their leave of
the Lady, and thanked her for her care, and went to their rest."
RotK, The Passing of the Grey Company
PASSED OVER
"Of their [Isildur and company] journey nothing is told until they
had passed over the Dagorlad, and on northward into the wide and
empty lands south of Greenwood the Great."
UT, The Disaster of the Gladden Fields
"A short way back the road had bent a little northward and the
stretch that they [Frodo and Sam] had passed over was now screened
from sight."
RotK, The Land of Shadow
"Then Fingolfin beheld (as it seemed to him) the utter ruin of the
Noldor, and the defeat beyond redress of all their houses; and filled
with wrath and despair he mounted upon Rochallor his great horse and
rode forth alone, and none might restrain him. He passed over
Dor-nu-Fauglith like a wind amid the dust, and all that beheld his
onset fled in amaze, thinking that Orome himself was come..."
Silm, Of the Ruin of Beleriand
TEMPEST
"Then the Orcs screamed, waving spear and sword, and shooting a cloud
of arrows at any that stood revealed upon the battlements; and the
men of the Mark amazed looked out, as it seemed to them, upon a great
dark field of corn, tossed by a tempest of war, and every ear glinted
with barbed light."
TT, Helm's Deep
"Like a crash of tempest the guard of the Wing were amid the men of
the Mole, and these were stricken asunder."
BoLT2, The Fall of Gondolin
"Then tumult awoke, a tempest wild
in rage roaring that rocked the walls;
consuming madness seized on Morgoth"
LoB, Second Version of the Children of Hurin ~216
There are several other examples of battles and troops being
described as 'storms' or 'winds' (as Fingolfin was in the
Silmarillion quotation above) in Tolkien's writings. In all these
cases (unless we are to assume that the Balrogs actually transformed
into a meteorological event) the term is being used as a metaphor,
and the degree of comparison is between the actual and metaphorical
is impossible to determine. A tempest of fire could be anything from
a literal firestorm (and NOT a metaphor) to several flames moving
quickly... a host of Balrogs charging into battle certainly
qualifies, with no need that they be airborne or in the form of
clouds.
As for 'winged speed', I have been unable to find any other case in
which Tolkien used this phrase, but there are several examples of its
non flight related use in other sources;
"O! what excuse will my poor beast then find,
When swift extremity can seem but slow?
Then should I spur, though mounted on the wind,
In winged speed no motion shall I know,
Then can no horse with my desire keep pace..."
William Shakespeare, Sonnet 51
"My beautiful! my beautiful! that standest meekly by.
With thy proudly-arched and glossy neck, and dark and fiery eye!
Fret not to roam the desert now with all thy winged speed:
I may not mount on thee again - thou'rt sold, my Arab steed!"
Caroline Norton, The Arab's Farewell to his Steed
"But when he fell, with winged speed,
His champions, on a milk-white steed,
From the battle's hurricane,
Bore him to Joseph's towered fane,
In the fair vale of Avalon"
Thomas Warton, The Grave of King Arthur
"The king is on the waves!
The storm he boldly braves.
His ocean-steed,
With winged speed,
O'er the white-flashing surges,
To England's coast he urges..."
Einar Skulason, translation of the Saga of Sigurd the Crusader
"Like as a ship, that through the Ocean wyde
Directs her course unto one certaine cost,
Is met of many a counter winde and tyde,
With which her winged speed is let and crost,
And she her selfe in stormie surges tost;
Yet making many a borde, and many a bay,
Still winneth way, ne hath her compasse lost..."
Spencer, The Faerie Queen
"It was too late; he [a human] left street after street behind him
with his almost winged speed, as he sought the fields, where he might
give way unobserved to all the deep despair he felt."
Elizabeth Gaskell, 'Mary Barton'
Tolkien himself does use just 'winged' in a figurative sense;
"There now she stepped with elven pace,
bending and swaying in her grace,
as half-reluctant; then began
to dance, to dance: in mazes ran
bewildering, and a mist of white
was wreathed about her whirling flight.
Wind-ripples on the water flashed,
and trembling leaf and flower were plashed
with diamond-dews, as ever fleet
and fleeter went her winged feet."
LoB, The Lay of Leithian Recommenced - Canto III continued, 75
Tolkien also used each of these terms, except 'winged speed', in
passages clearly referring to flying creatures. I have not included
these here as I have never seen anyone argue that they COULDN'T refer
to flight. Still, one particular case is noteworthy as it uses the
same 'tempest of fire' phrase in reference to winged dragons;
"So sudden and ruinous was the onset of that dreadful fleet that
Fionwe was driven back; for the coming of the dragons was like a
great roar of thunder, and a tempest of fire, and their wings were of
steel."
LROW, Quenta Silmarillion - Conclusion ~17
The only passage I have been able to find (anywhere) where 'winged
speed' is clearly used of creatures which actually have wings is;
"So spake the Son; but Satan, with his Powers,
Far was advanced on winged speed; an host
Innumerable as the stars of night..."
Milton, Paradise Lost
Once it has been thoroughly demonstrated that none of the terms in
the so called 'Hithlum passage' speaks unambiguously of flight it is
sometimes suggested that the particular combination of them all
together in one sentence indicates that flight was the intent. The
equally valid counter-argument is that Tolkien was using these terms
as imagery to poetically describe the swiftness of the Balrogs'
travel. Either interpretation is possible. There is also one
external passage which contains 'arose' and 'passed over' in the same
relation Tolkien used them, but in reference to a human;
"And David arose, and he passed over with the six hundred men
that were with him unto Achish, the son of Maoch, king of Gath"
Samuel 27.2
As a side note, Tolkien wrote several versions of the Hithlum
passage. These are of some relevance as they describe the matter in
somewhat different terms;
"She enmeshes him in a black web, but he is rescued by the Balrogs
with whips of flame, and a host of the Orcs; and Ungoliant goes away
into the uttermost South."
SoME, The Earliest 'Silmarillion'
"...and his awful cry echoed through the shuddering world. To his aid
came the Orcs and Balrogs that lived yet in the lowest places of
Angband. With their whips of flame the Balrogs smote the webs
asunder..."
SoME, The Quenta
"...and his awful cry echoed through the shuddering world. To his aid
there came the Balrogs that lived yet in the deepest places of his
ancient fortress, Utumno in the North. With their whips of flame the
Balrogs smote the webs asunder..."
LROW, Quenta Silmarillion
"...and his dreadful cry echoed through the world. Then there came to
his aid the Balrogs, who endured still in deep places in the North
where the Valar had not discovered them. With their whips of flame
they smote her webs asunder..."
MR, The Annals of Aman (section 5)
"...Far beneath the ruined halls of Angband, in vaults to which the
Valar in the haste of their assault had not descended, Balrogs lurked
still, awaiting ever the return of their Lord; and swiftly they rose,
and passing over Hithlum they came to Lammoth as a tempest of
fire..."
Silm, Of the Flight of the Noldor
In most of these there is nothing to suggest flight. Only in the
final forms of the scene, dating to the mid through late 1950s, do
the 'pro-flight' terms (arose, passed over, winged speed, and
tempest) appear. This could indicate that Tolkien decided to grant
Balrogs flight in later years, or only that he used the terms
figuratively. The presence of the land-bound Orcs in earlier
versions is sometimes used to offset claims that only flying
creatures could have gotten to Morgoth in time. The passage in 'The
Silmarillion' was apparently edited from the original text given in
Morgoth's Ring, though it is possible that there was another closely
related version of the passage used in The Silmarillion.
III. Flying from Thangorodrim
"Thus they roused from sleep a thing of terror that, flying from
Thangorodrim, had lain hidden at the foundations of the earth since
the coming of the Host of the West: a Balrog of Morgoth."
RotK, Appendix A.III - Durin's Folk
As with the first passage the argument is that this should be read to
say that the Balrog flew away from Thangorodrim and leave it at
that. Placed against this is the fact that 'flying' can mean
'fleeing', and that the term was frequently used in that manner by
Tolkien;
"There were lots of dragons in the North in those days, and gold was
probably getting scarce up there, with the dwarves flying south or
getting killed, and all the general waste and destruction that
dragons make going from bad to worse."
TH, An Unexpected Party
"Out of the gloom came suddenly the shape of a flying deer."
TH, Flies and Spiders
"Already many of the goblins were flying back down the river to
escape from the trap; and many of their own wolves were turning upon
them and rending the dead and the wounded."
TH, The Clouds Burst
"'It can't be helped, Sam,' said Frodo sadly. He had suddenly
realized that flying from the Shire would mean more painful partings
than merely saying farewell to the familiar comforts of Bag End."
FotR, The Shadow of the Past
"'There is no sound outside here yet,' said Aragorn, who was standing
by the eastern door listening. 'The passage on this side plunges
straight down a stair: it plainly does not lead back towards the
hall. But it is no good flying blindly this way with the pursuit just
behind."
FotR, The Bridge of Khazad-Dum
"He staggered and fell, grasped vainly at the stone, and slid into
the abyss. 'Fly, you fools! ' he cried, and was gone."
FotR, The Bridge of Khazad-Dum
It seems clear that Tolkien did not intend movement through the air
in any of these latter quotations, and thus that the Balrog 'flying
from Thangorodrim' might well have referred to the fact of it's
escape rather than the mode.
IV. The shadow of the Balrog
"Soon it appeared as a great winged creature, blacker than the pits
in the night. Fierce voices rose up to greet it from across the
water. Frodo felt a sudden chill running through him and clutching at
his heart; there was a deadly cold, like the memory of an old wound,
in his shoulder.
...
'But who can say what it hit?' said Legolas.
'I cannot,' said Gimli. `But I am glad that the shadow came no
nearer. I liked it not at all. Too much it reminded me of the shadow
in Moria - the shadow of the Balrog,' he ended in a whisper.
'It was not a Balrog,' said Frodo, still shivering with the chill
that had come upon him. 'It was something colder. I think it was -'
Then he paused and fell silent."
The argument here is that Gimli's comparison of the 'Winged Nazgul'
to a Balrog and Frodo's denial suggest that the Balrog must also have
been winged, and possibly capable of flight. However, what Gimli
actually says is that it reminded him of the shadow of the Balrog...
which would not require the Balrog to have been winged at all - the
two creatures could have similarly imposing 'shadows' without being
the same shape. At that, Frodo seems clearly to guess that it was a
Nazgul, noting that his old wound acted up, despite knowing full well
that the Nazgul were not winged. If Frodo could come to such a
conclusion based upon his impressions of the 'shadow' despite the
inappropriate shape then it stands to reason that Gimli could as
well... to him the shadow seemed most similar to the Balrog, and we
can't really read anything more into that with any degree of
certainty.
V. The troll-guard of Gothmog
"Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed; and it
is sung that the axe smoked in the black blood of the troll-guard of
Gothmog until it withered..."
Silm, Of the Fifth Battle
The argument put forward here is that if Gothmog was guarded by land
-bound trolls he must also have been land-bound. This seems a strong
argument unless he was capable of flight, but rarely did so.
However, this text appears only in the published Silmarillion, which
was edited by Christopher Tolkien to 'line up' the various drafts and
LotR. The VERY few references to 'trolls' in the draft materials for
The Silmarillion might be taken as figurative descriptions (Morgoth
calls Turgon a 'troll' for instance') as the creatures themselves are
never seen, and it is thus entirely possible that Christopher
inserted this bit himself to introduce LotR's trolls into the earlier
stories. In several earlier variants of this passage Hurin is pulled
down by Orcs. Still, it is also possible that JRRT made this change
himself on a late manuscript which was used for the published
version.
VI. In his train were Balrogs
"In the front of that fire came Glaurung the golden, father of
dragons, in his full might; and in his train were Balrogs, and behind
them came the black armies of the Orcs in multitudes such as the
Noldor had never before seen or imagined."
Silm, Of the Ruin of Beleriand
As Glaurung was wingless and flightless it is suggested that Balrogs
being 'in his train' implies that they were the same. However, they
might only have been remaining on the ground to stay near the dragon.
Unlike the previous passage this does have a variant outside of The
Silmarillion to confirm that the wording originated with JRRT;
"In the front of that fire came Glomund the golden, the father of
dragons, and in his train were Balrogs, and behind them came the
black armies of the Orcs in multitudes such as the Gnomes had never
before seen or imagined."
LROW, Quenta Silmarillion - Of the Ruin of Beleriand ~135
VII. Ran down swifter than Balrogs
"Then suddenly Morgoth sent forth great rivers of flame that ran down
swifter than Balrogs from Thangorodrim..."
Silm, Of the Ruin of Beleriand
This is taken to suggest that the Balrogs could run very quickly and
thus again implying that they were flightless. However, this passage
was apparently derived by Christopher from a similar early text;
"Then suddenly Morgoth sent forth great rivers of flame that poured,
swifter than the cavalry of the Balrogs, over all the plain; and the
Mountains of Iron belched forth fires of many colours, and the fume
stank upon the air and was deadly.
LROW, Quenta Silmarillion - Of the Ruin of Beleriand
The reference to 'cavalry' is due to early accounts where the Balrogs
rode into battle on dragons. This would again put them on the
ground, but does not suggest that 'running' was their usual method of
travel and does not preclude them having wings or being able to fly.
VIII. Out of reach of Orc and Balrog
"The eagles dwell out of reach of Orc and Balrog, and are great foes
of Morgoth and his people."
SoME, The Earliest 'Silmarillion' ~8
While this seems a strong argument against Balrogs flying it might be
argued that they could only fly short distances, and thus not reach
the heights of the Eagles' eyries. It is more commonly suggested
that this was an 'outdated' idea, though there is no account of the
Eagles ever being opposed in the air until the coming of the winged
dragons.
IX. Had yet assailed the air
"But he loosed upon his foes the last desperate assault that he had
prepared, and out of the pits of Angband there issued the winged
dragons, that had not before been seen; for until that day no
creatures of his cruel thought had yet assailed the air."
LROW, Quenta Silmarillion - Conclusion ~17
Here the Balrogs were clearly unable to fly... they were at that time
still considered creations of Morgoth's and thus 'creatures of his
cruel thought'. Yet that very age is again the basis for the
argument against this passage; that it speaks of an earlier form of
Balrogs.
Still, we have here the only unambiguous passage on this subject. At
one point the Balrogs could not fly. It is entirely possible that
Tolkien later changed his mind about this, but the earlier situation
seems clear. These earlier Balrogs might still have had wings,
though as they could not fly and there are no contemporary texts
describing them with such it seems unlikely. This text was written
in 1937 and actually submitted to the publishers, but while not
rejecting it out of hand A&U asked for 'more about hobbits'... and
Tolkien began work on what would become LotR immediately thereafter.
X. Whereby he might learn to fly
"Then arose Thorndor, King of Eagles, and he loved not Melko, for
Melko had caught many of his kindred and chained them against sharp
rocks to squeeze from them the magic words whereby he might learn to
fly (for he dreamed of contending even against Manwe in the air); and
when they would not tell he cut off their wings and sought to fashion
therefrom a mighty pair for his use, but it availed not."
BoLT2, The Fall of Gondolin
This passage from an early stage of the mythology indicates that
Melkor could not fly and thus perhaps that other Ainur like the
Balrogs could not, but might also be taken to imply that Manwe could
(though that portion could also refer to Manwe's Eagles themselves).
It might also be seen as further support for Melkor's lack of any
flying troops, but as usual the possibility remains that this was
changed later.
Note that while it is sometimes suggested that Ainur might be able to
fly without wings this passage is the only one I know of which can be
read to suggest that they did so... and then only for Manwe and
specifically NOT for Melko.
XI. They could see the furnace-fire of its yellow eyes
There are so many passages regarding Balrogs which do NOT mention
wings or flight in any way that this document would more than double
in length to list them all. Instead, I will start with one that is
possibly the most detailed description and one of the chronologically
latest in origin;
"A figure strode to the fissure, no more than man-high yet terror
seemed to go before it. They could see the furnace-fire of its
yellow eyes from afar; its arms were very long; it had a red
[?tongue]. Through the air it sprang over the fiery fissure. The
flames leaped up to greet it and wreathed about it. Its streaming
hair seemed to catch fire, and the sword that it held turned to
flame. In its other hand it held a whip of many thongs.
...
The fiery figure ran across the floor."
ToI, The Bridge
This is the first detailed draft of the Balrog scene from FotR.
There are several items of note here;
1: There is no mention of a shadow
2: The Balrog is seen clearly and details are described
3: There is no mention of wings
4: It is no more than man-high
5: It runs and jumps rather than flying
While it is often argued that the Balrog in FotR did not fly because
it did not have sufficient room this earlier version makes the Balrog
comparatively small. Also, that the Balrog was able to enter the
Chamber of Mazarbul suggests either that it was not gigantic or that
it was able to change its size (again, see Volume Five for the pros
and cons of that issue). The description of its size and shape went
through several changes;
"The Balrog when first seen beyond the fiery fissure is described as
'of man-shape maybe, and not much larger' (cf. pp. 197, 199). The
fair copy C has here likewise 'and not much greater' (FR: 'of
man-shape maybe, yet greater')"
Only in the final form, which is also when 'the wings spread from
wall to wall' was added, is it stated to be unambiguously larger than
human - though not how much so.
Further, against the description cited above Tolkien included a note
to himself;
"Alter description of Balrog. It seemed to be of man's shape, but
its form could not be plainly discerned. It felt larger than it
looked."
ToI, The Bridge
This would suggest that even the Balrog of the final version might
not have been as large as it seemed, but Tolkien could also have
abandoned the idea entirely. Ultimately, we don't know and thus the
'not enough room' argument remains a possibility for the final form
of this scene.
In any case it is also argued that even if it had room to do so
perhaps the Balrog did not want to fly, that it did not fear falling
into the chasm. However, in the earliest outline (after Tolkien
decides that it should be a Balrog rather than a Nazgul in Moria) it
seems to be implied that the fall would be fatal and that Gandalf
survives by thrusting the Balrog beneath him;
"They are pursued by goblins and a B[lack] R[ider] [written above: a
Balrog] after escaping from Balin's Tomb - they come to a bridge of
slender stone over a gulf. Gandalf turns back and holds off
[?enemy], they cross the bridge but the B[lack] R[ider] leaps forward
and wrestles with Gandalf. The bridge cracks under them and the last
they see is Gandalf falling into the pit with the B[lack] R[ider].
There is a flash of fire and blue light up from abyss. Their grief.
Trotter now guides party. (Of course Gandalf must reappear later -
probably fall is not as deep as it seemed. Gandalf thrusts Balrog
under him and so....... and eventually following the subterranean
stream in the gulf he found a way out."
RotS, The Mines of Moria
Further, in all versions, the Balrog cries out when the bridge
breaks;
"With a terrible cry the Balrog fell forward, and its shadow plunged
down and vanished."
FotR, The Bridge of Khazad-dum
"With a terrible cry the troll fell after it, and the Balrog
[?tumbled] sideways with a yell and fell into the chasm."
ToI, The Bridge
As the Balrog is not yet injured (another common reason given for why
the Moria Balrog or Glorfindel's did not fly away when the fight went
against them) these passages would seem to suggest that if it could
have flown, it would have. Likewise, other Balrogs in earlier tales
did not fly in circumstances where they ought to have if they could;
"Then the Balrogs continued to shoot darts of fire and flaming arrows
like small snakes into the sky, and these fell upon the roofs and
gardens of Gondolin till all the trees were scorched, and the flowers
and grass burned up, and the whiteness of those walls and colonnades
was blackened and seared: yet a worse matter was it that a company of
those demons climbed upon the coils of the serpents of iron and
thence loosed unceasingly from their bows and slings till a fire
began to burn in the city to the back of the main army of the
defenders.
...
A great deed was that sally, as the Noldoli sing yet, and many of the
Orcs were borne backward into the fires below; but the men of Rog
leapt even upon the coils of the serpents and came at those Balrogs
and smote them grievously... and the number of Balrogs that perished
was a marvel and dread to the hosts of Melko..."
BoLT2, The Fall of Gondolin
Here, the Balrogs must climb up onto dragons to shoot over the walls
of Gondolin, and indeed much of the battle was a struggle to breach
the walls - suggesting that these thousands of Balrogs were incapable
of simply flying over them. Further, when the Elves charged down
onto them the Balrogs did not fly away to escape, but were actually
killed. They were not injured, there was plenty of air room, they
had every reason to fly... but of couse, these were Balrogs in the
early stories and the argument that Tolkien might have changed their
nature later still applies.
In the final analysis at least one of the four common explanations
for Balrogs NOT flying is possible for every situation in which they
do not;
1: Insufficient room to fly
2: Too injured to fly
3: Had no reason to fly at that time
4: Was an early period 'pre-flying' Balrog
Still, there is a tremendous amount of 'not flying' material
throughout Tolkien's many versions of the mythologies, accompanied by
an equal amount of text where there is no mention of wings. Even if
Tolkien DID decide to make Balrogs winged in later years there would
have been alot of material to rework to account for this change.
XII. Nor speaks of the 'wings'
One last issue seldom explored is the way that >Christopher< Tolkien
treats the issue of Balrog wings;
"In B it is said only that the Balrog 'stood facing him': in C 'the
Balrog halted facing him, and the shadow about him reached out like
great wings'.(17) Immediately afterwards, where in FR the Balrog drew
itelf up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to
wall', neither B nor C has the words 'to a great height' nor speaks
of the 'wings'"
ToI, The Bridge
There are two items of particular note here;
1: Christopher refers to the "'wings'"
2: The 'shadow like wings' were around GANDALF
The use of single quotations ('') to set off a word is a common
method, used elsewhere by both JRRT and Christopher, to suggest that
the term is in some way invalid or uncertain. That Christopher uses
it of the 'wings' might thus be taken to suggest that he considers
them a figurative feature. However, that is by no means a certainty
though the purpose of the '' separation is not otherwise apparent.
Along these lines it is also noted that IF the various Silmarillion
passages quoted earlier (The troll-guard of Gothmog, In his train
were Balrogs, Ran down swifter than Balrogs and even the Silmarillion
variant of 'They passed with winged speed') were edited by
Christopher then he seems to have consistently made alterations that
would favor wingless and/or non-flying Balrogs. If these weren't so
edited then they came in that form from JRRT and would be even more
supportive of that view.
As to the second point, as Christopher describes it;
"The second him is Gandalf, not only from the syntax, but also
because the Balrog is always referred to as it. FR has 'the shadow
about it'."
ToI, The Bridge - Note 17
While there are a few stray references in later books where the
Balrog is referred to as 'he' (by Gandalf rather than the narrator)
Christopher is essentially correct that 'it' is the usual pronoun and
grammatically 'he' should refer to Gandalf. That the 'shadow like
wings' originally appeared as the darkness split around Gandalf's
light shows clearly that this phrase cannot ONLY be read as a 'vague'
pre-description of the wings, it was originally used to describe a
shadow effect around Gandalf and not the Balrog at all. Nor did the
'wings spread from wall to wall' appear in that version where the
'shadow wings' were around Gandalf.
Likewise, the 'shadow' itself was originally much more limited in
scope, introduced as an aside during the Moria drafts, and then
expanded to an inherent characteristic of the Balrogs;
"After the words 'Through the air it sprang over the fiery fissure'
my father added: 'and a great shadow seemed to black out the light.'"
ToI, The Bridge
This is the first reference to 'shadow' in relation to Balrogs, none
had ever been mentioned in any of the descriptions before this. So,
the Balrog's description in the LotR drafts proceeded from;
1: No shadow and no wings like all Balrogs before this
2: As above but casting a shadow that blocked out light
3: Wrapped in shadow that split about Gandalf like wings
4: Wrapped in shadow that seemed to look like wings
It might be supposed that in writing of the 'shadow wings' Tolkien
was struck by the idea and decided to make it a feature of the
Balrog. However, if so it must have occurred to him that he had a
great deal of material already written which could not support the
idea of winged or flying Balrogs. While entirely speculative (though
consistent with the evolution of the passage) this might explain the
inconclusive wording he used in both this and the Hithlum passage.
It is possible that Tolkien liked the idea of winged (and flying)
Balrogs, but never specifically made them so because he had not
worked out how or whether he could revise all the older texts to
conform to this idea... Or perhaps he just liked the imagery for the
scene and had no intention of making a permanent change... Or he
intended the change, but did not state it distinctly enough to
convince all his readers that it was what he meant to do. We really
don't know.
Ultimately the texts are ambiguous, and no amount of proclaiming that
they must be read a certain way is going to change anyone's mind or
alter the fact that many examples can be found of the same phrases
and linguistic structures being used in other ways. As such, the
best course might well be to respect the possibility of the opposing
views and strive to gather as much evidence as possible on every side
of the discussion.
Conrad Dunkerson
news:d_DQ6.49710$t12.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Do Balrogs have wings, and can they fly?
<ridiculously large snip>
For the record, this is the last full volume in the series. There
will be a short appendix covering various and sundry other matters
that should not take too long to compile.
I'm afraid that this latest volume is a bit 'unpolished' in that I
have not gone over it from start to finish to adjust the wording
and ponder my presentation... it is more or less a raw dump of the
information and my impressions as they occurred to me (and the later
ones being a bit more hurried as I have been at it nearly the entire
day... and many many hours before this just gathering all the
materials). I left out some quotations that I considered extraneous
(evidence that 'arose' can refer to a flying creature, further
examples of early Balrogs not flying, et cetera) that I will review
later to see if it should be included in a future version.
I can already see several errors of presentation and tone that I will
want to fix later... just in the half hour it took to format the
thing for Usenet line lengths. Still, I think it is complete enough
that it was worth getting the blasted thing OUT and await your
comments. Hopefully I will have succeeded in my only real goal
here... finding at least ONE thing that each reader had not seen or
considered before.
And now... I'm off to sleep. Oi, my fingers hurt.
Steuard Jensen
the essay, and I also appreciate the substantial blocks of quotes. I
think it actually _is_ helpful to show that a given usage is
reasonably common in that way. Anyway, this is good stuff.
Quoth "Conrad Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> in
article <d_DQ6.49710$t12.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
> I. Its wings were spread from wall to wall
> An example of this 'simile to metaphor' progression can be seen in;
>
> "There the green floor ran on into the wood, and formed a wide space
> like a hall, roofed by the boughs of trees. Their great trunks ran
> like pillars down each side. In the middle there was a wood-fire
> blazing, and upon the tree-pillars torches with lights of gold and
> silver were burning steadily."
> FotR, Three is Company
I'd love it if you could find a better example of this. The fact that
it's "tree-pillars" rather than "pillars" used later feels like it
substantially weakens the argument. If better passages are hard to
find in Tolkien's works, it might actually be worthwhile to insert an
artificial example of the construction before you start quoting, just
to make sure the idea is clear (the "fruit tastes like an apple"
example that I gave in the current AFT Balrog thread could be good,
but there are probably many better examples out there). The troll-men
example that you cite immediately after this is also a good one, but
as you point out, it too has been read in ways that don't reflect the
simile -> metaphor technique.
> Note: I have left out the details of a common counter-argument...
> The >Balrog< is said to be 'like a great shadow', which would mean
> that 'the Balrog is not a shadow' under the simile > metaphor
> reasoning just as this leads to 'the shadow is not wings'. It does
> NOT mean that there is nothing LIKE a shadow present...
I feel like this section could stand to be rephrased somewhat, but
that may just be because I'm used to the way that I usually present it
(as I recently did in the AFT Balrog thread). Perhaps I'm just
looking for a slightly less condensed discussion of this point; it has
been brought up enough (to our great frustration) that a firm and
clear explanation of why it doesn't apply is probably a good idea.
> II. They passed with winged speed (aka The Hithlum Passage)
> As for 'winged speed', I have been unable to find any other case in
> which Tolkien used this phrase, but there are several examples of
> its non flight related use in other sources;
This is the one place where I'm uncertain on the value of the sheer
number of other sources used. It's an important point, yes, and it's
particularly tricky as you don't have any Tolkien examples to cite,
but this list does get a little tedious. On the other hand, as I said
from the start, the repetition of examples does make a very convincing
case that the phrase was in common use without implying flight.
> Tolkien himself does use just 'winged' in a figurative sense;
>
> Wind-ripples on the water flashed,
> and trembling leaf and flower were plashed
> with diamond-dews, as ever fleet
> and fleeter went her winged feet."
> LoB, The Lay of Leithian Recommenced - Canto III continued, 75
But, clearly this means that Luthien had wings on her feet! :)
Seriously, though, my only complaint here is that you've cited ten
lines of the poem for the sake of the second to last word in the
quote. I can see the value in keeping the full context and that may
be the best choice, but I just thought I'd raise the possibility of
cutting a little more. (The same might go for some of the non-Tolkien
quotes earlier; I didn't think to look at them so closely.)
> The only passage I have been able to find (anywhere) where 'winged
> speed' is clearly used of creatures which actually have wings is;
>
> "So spake the Son; but Satan, with his Powers,
> Far was advanced on winged speed; an host
> Innumerable as the stars of night..."
> Milton, Paradise Lost
I haven't actually read Milton, so I don't really know the context
here, but I'd just point out that I'm not clear on what exactly in
this passage has wings (Satan and his Powers, presumably, but I don't
know who those Powers are, and I haven't always associated Satan
himself with wings).
> ...it is sometimes suggested that the particular combination of them
> all together in one sentence indicates that flight was the intent.
> The equally valid counter-argument is that Tolkien was using these
> terms as imagery to poetically describe the swiftness of the
> Balrogs' travel.
I might have said, "An equally valid counter-argument is that Tolkiwn
intentionally used these terms to create a poetic image of flight
describing the swiftness of the Balrogs' travel." Well, that isn't
perfect either, but the point is that it could be worthwhile to make
it a little clearer that the poetic imagery is a consistent image of
flight (that is, to rephrase this yet again, incorporate the
repetition into the counter-argument explicitly). (Yeesh, all this
rephrasing... must be late.)
> As a side note, Tolkien wrote several versions of the Hithlum
> passage.
Personally, I might not quote _all_ of the intermediate forms, but
rather quote the first and last non-flight examples with a statement
that the intermediate forms also don't use any flight imagery. The
impact is greater the way that you've chosen to present it here, but I
tend to throw out the pre-LotR drafts entirely when contemplating this
issue. Thus, for me the repetition makes a point, but a rather weak
one. As usual, your call.
> III. Flying from Thangorodrim
> As with the first passage the argument is that this should be read
> to say that the Balrog flew away from Thangorodrim and leave it at
> that. Placed against this is the fact that 'flying' can mean
> 'fleeing', and that the term was frequently used in that manner by
> Tolkien;
I'd also point out that a creature trying to escape the vigilance of
the host of the West would probably be a lot easier to spot in the
air, but that's a pretty weak argument. It's probably not worth
including, but as I said, it's late, and I thought I'd mention it. :)
> IV. The shadow of the Balrog
> 'I cannot,' said Gimli. `But I am glad that the shadow came no
> nearer. I liked it not at all. Too much it reminded me of the shadow
> in Moria - the shadow of the Balrog,' he ended in a whisper.
I often make more of Gimli's phrasing here: "the shadow in Moria - the
shadow of the Balrog" (and also his description of the unknown thing
as "the shadow" rather than "whatever cast the shadow"). I take this
passage as almost unambiguous evidence that whatever else there was
about the Balrog, it had some unusually significant "shadow". In
particular, I can't imagine Gimli using these words if the "shadow" of
the Balrog was an ordinary shadow cast on the walls, or if he had ever
seen that what initially looked like a "shadow" was really a pair of
leathery batlike wings. If you can see a natural way to read this
that _doesn't_ imply that the Balrog was essentially associated with a
"shadow", I would of course be eager to hear about it. :)
Of course, it is still possible that the Balrog had _both_ a "shadow"
of "palpable darkness" _and_ bone-and-leather wings, but in my opinion
that's harder to support (it would require Tolkien to be using "wings"
to refer to two entirely different things in the bridge scene, without
any warning).
[Interesting side note: is it possible that the Nazgul (maybe just
when on their flying steeds) actually exuded some sort of extended
"shadow" themselves? I'm thinking in particular of the death of the
Witch King's mount in the battle of the Pelennor fields: "and with its
fall the shadow passed away." Yes, this could have been a localized
shadow upon Eowyn and the King alone, but my vague impression has
always been of something more (the first mention of that shadow, when
the Witch King first reappears to stoop upon Theoden, doesn't make the
matter particularly clear: the shadow there _sounds_ larger and more
complete than I would expect of a simple flying beast). If so, well,
that could be interesting.]
Your other points here are very good, incidentally, and my comment
above is _only_ suggested as a supplement to what you've already got.
> V. The troll-guard of Gothmog
> The argument put forward here is that if Gothmog was guarded by land
> -bound trolls he must also have been land-bound. This seems a
> strong argument unless he was capable of flight, but rarely did so.
Or simply that his "guard" was there either as an elite unit under his
immediate command, or that they were there to rescue him if he were
injured... quite a few other arguments can be made against this one in
addition to the ones that you've already listd.
> VI. In his train were Balrogs
> As Glaurung was wingless and flightless it is suggested that Balrogs
> being 'in his train' implies that they were the same. However, they
> might only have been remaining on the ground to stay near the
> dragon.
Or they may not have actually been on the ground at all: I can
certainly imagine Glaurung's "train" extending behind him in three
dimensions (I'm imagining a sort of wedge shape, with Glaurung at its
point). Then again, that implies a substantial number of Balrogs,
which may or may not have existed (see an earlier volume of these
essays :) ).
> VII. Ran down swifter than Balrogs
> This is taken to suggest that the Balrogs could run very quickly and
> thus again implying that they were flightless.
Don't people also often say, "swifter than eagles", and that sort of
thing? As discussed under the Hithlum passage, flight is often
poetically associated with speed, so "swifter than Balrogs" could
_very_ easily refer to Balrogs as flying creatures.
> VIII. Out of reach of Orc and Balrog
> ...there is no account of the Eagles ever being opposed in the air
> until the coming of the winged dragons.
I actually find that fairly significant, as I can't shake the feeling
that a Balrog could pluck and eat most eagles for lunch. Still, the
First Age eagles were awfully impressive, so this may be a bit
uncharitable of me.
> IX. Had yet assailed the air
> Here the Balrogs were clearly unable to fly... they were at that
> time still considered creations of Morgoth's and thus 'creatures of
> his cruel thought'. Yet that very age is again the basis for the
> argument against this passage; that it speaks of an earlier form of
> Balrogs.
Drat it... I _liked_ this quote for the no-flight position, too.
However, your objection here is quite sound, I think. I still do
appreciate the points you make in (partial) defense of this passage,
though, and despite my readiness to discard earlier texts I'm hesitant
to do so in this case.
> X. Whereby he might learn to fly
> Note that while it is sometimes suggested that Ainur might be able
> to fly without wings this passage is the only one I know of which
> can be read to suggest that they did so... and then only for Manwe
> and specifically NOT for Melko.
Good point. I actually feel like there is a reasonable amount of weak
and circumstantial evidence that they _couldn't_ fly without
transforming to a shape that could do so "naturally", but I haven't
tried to assemble it together. Still, I feel like it's an open enough
question at this point that I'll leave it in the FAQ as an easy way to
play up the ambiguity of the issue (and perhaps as an invitation to
others to make a good argument for or against the idea).
> XI. They could see the furnace-fire of its yellow eyes
> Also, that the Balrog was able to enter the Chamber of Mazarbul
> suggests either that it was not gigantic or that it was able to
> change its size (again, see Volume Five for the pros and cons of
> that issue).
This could conceivably deserve more detailed treatment, though I
should look back at your Volume 5 before really saying so. Then
again, it doesn't really make _that_ much of a statement about when
the Balrog would have enough room to use its wings to fly.
> In any case it is also argued that even if it had room to do so
> perhaps the Balrog did not want to fly, that it did not fear falling
> into the chasm.
And that it may have wanted to deal with Gandalf as its chief
priority in particular.
> Further, in all versions, the Balrog cries out when the bridge
> breaks;
>
> "With a terrible cry the Balrog fell forward, and its shadow plunged
> down and vanished."
> FotR, The Bridge of Khazad-dum
Of course, that may have just been surprise, or even distress that it
had to choose which foes to fight rather than taking the whole company
one at a time. It may have even been after the Ring, but assumed that
Gandalf (as the most powerful person in the party) held it... but been
sufficiently uncertain that it didn't want to choose between them.
> XII. Nor speaks of the 'wings'
> 1: Christopher refers to the "'wings'"
> The use of single quotations ('') to set off a word is a common
> method, used elsewhere by both JRRT and Christopher, to suggest that
> the term is in some way invalid or uncertain. That Christopher uses
> it of the 'wings' might thus be taken to suggest that he considers
> them a figurative feature. However, that is by no means a certainty
> though the purpose of the '' separation is not otherwise apparent.
He could also be leaving the term deliberately ambiguous, as I do in
the FAQ. (I use '"wings"' with precisely that intent... well, and
because I wanted to make myself happier with my claim that we agree
that the Balrog had them. :) )
> 2: The 'shadow like wings' were around GANDALF
> As to the second point, as Christopher describes it;
>
> "The second him is Gandalf, not only from the syntax, but also
> because the Balrog is always referred to as it. FR has 'the shadow
> about it'."
> ToI, The Bridge - Note 17
The later change from "him" to "it" does weaken this point, but it's
an interesting one and it doesn't get brought up very often. I kinda
like it.
> As such, the best course might well be to respect the possibility of
> the opposing views and strive to gather as much evidence as possible
> on every side of the discussion.
Well concluded. :) Thanks again for a great discussion (and timely,
too), and for the considerable effort that is very clear from what
you've presented here. As I've said before, I'm quite interested in
including your full "Truth About Balrogs" series on my webpage as a
sort of topical "mini-FAQ" (along with my Bombadil essay), and perhaps
linking to both of those from the Tolkien Newsgroups FAQ. Unless you
have any objections, I'll put it up as soon as I have the chance, with
clear statement of authorship and copyright, of course. Great work!
Steuard Jensen
Steuard Jensen
> ...just in the half hour it took to format the thing for Usenet line
> lengths.
Hmm. What program are you using to write this? I've done two things
to avoid spending ages reformatting like that. In emacs, there's a
handy "fill-paragraph" command that can usually be run by hitting
"M-q" (that's generally "ESC" "q" on the keyboards I use); this will
basically re-wordwrap everything from the previous blank line to the
next one. When not using emacs, I generally use WordPerfect, and I've
set up a document template to use a fixed-width font and margins that
result in a reasonable Usenet line length (Courier New 11 point with
1" margins is pretty close, I think). That has the advantage of
correcting the word wrapping as I tweak with things (I use WordPerfect
for longer essays in particular), and once I save in MS-DOS text
format (or the equivelent), the hard returns are in exactly the right
places. You could presumably do similar things with the "Save As..."
option in most other word processors.
> Hopefully I will have succeeded in my only real goal here... finding
> at least ONE thing that each reader had not seen or considered
> before.
Most certainly that! Thanks again!
Steuard Jensen
Matt Thrower
> XI. They could see the furnace-fire of its yellow eyes
>
> There are so many passages regarding Balrogs which do NOT mention
> wings or flight in any way that this document would more than double
> in length to list them all. Instead, I will start with one that is
> possibly the most detailed description and one of the chronologically
> latest in origin;
>
> "A figure strode to the fissure, no more than man-high yet terror
Here's something that's always puzzled me slightly. Please forgive me if I
have this totally wrong: I don't have a copy of LotR to hand, so my
quotation could be totally wrong. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that
the Balrog was a roughly man-sized creature, as would be indicated by the
above. However, I seem to recall that when the company heard orcs coming up
the corridors, Aragorn took a peak and made some statement about orcs being
"accompanied by something larger, a great hill-troll I think". Whereupon the
Balrog appears. This leaves the question of why he thought it was bigger
than the orcs and if it was as large as a troll, how it fitted through the
corridors of orc-sized Moria?
Packrat
Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
>
> Do Balrogs have wings, and can they fly?
>
<huge snip>
Is there any chance of you re-posting Vols. 1-5, or are they available online
somewhere? I thought this was really well put together, and I'd like to read
the first five as well. Thanks.
-Packrat
--
`,''`. `, ; : pack...@earthlink.net
: ; .''`. .''` :,,' `.''`. .''`. ,.:., "...a stranger and exile
;`'' : : : ;``. : : : : on the earth."
,' ``' ` `.., ,' ; ; ``' ` ;
Torgeir Aanes
The Orcs were accompanied by a few trolls as well as the Balrog, and
Aragorn probably saw one of these.
I don't think the Balrog shows up until after the Company has escaped
from Balin's tomb.
--
Torgeir Aanes
You're the boy with the filthy laugh
You're the boy with the arab strap
Steuard Jensen
<3B136210...@earthlink.net>:
> > Do Balrogs have wings, and can they fly?
> Is there any chance of you re-posting Vols. 1-5, or are they
> available online somewhere?
You could start by searching for them on Google Groups; look for posts
in the newsgroup "rec.arts.books.tolkien", by "Conrad", with subject
containing "Truth About Balrogs", and they _should_ all turn up.
(You'll need to use their advanced search page or learn the specific
search syntax for that, of course.) If you are willing to wait a few
days, I'll be putting them up on my Tolkien page before too long, and
I'll make sure to mention it here when I do.
Steuard Jensen
o.thomson
> <snip>
> This leaves the question of why he thought it was bigger
> than the orcs and if it was as large as a troll, how it fitted through the
> corridors of orc-sized Moria?
Not Orc-sized. Dwarf-sized.
These were not rat infested worm holes, you know. They were built by Dwarves at
the height of their power and reflected that glory. Big galleries and chambers
larger than European cathedrals. No problem for the B'rog even with his
appendages.
Just try to visualise an aviary, big enough for a flying water buffalo, except
pitch black and full of Orcs.
o.thomson
grimgard
Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
> "'It can't be helped, Sam,' said Frodo sadly. He had suddenly
> realized that flying from the Shire would mean more painful partings
> than merely saying farewell to the familiar comforts of Bag End."
> FotR, The Shadow of the Past
>
This is clearly nothing more than rank speculation on your part, Conrad.
Tolkien nevers states explicitly that there was no airport in the Shire.
Frodo probably just had a change of heart when he saw the price for a
first-class ticket. Seriously, though, nice work. I can't imagine how
long it must have taken you to dig out all those citations without an
e-text version. I would only comment that, although you addressed the
matter in general, you didn't actually mention the specific argument
that, if Balrogs had wings and were capable of flight, the Balrog would
have flown away when Gandalf cast him down from the peak of Zirak-zigil.
Personally, I find it to be a very weak argument, but it was brought up
with surprising consistency during the Great Debates.
grimgard
grimgard
Matt Thrower wrote:
The published version reads:
"What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of
which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror
seemed to be in it and to go before it."
The Balrog's 'shadow' apparently makes it appear much larger than its body
actually is. You could say that Aragorn was mistaken about the size of the
creature, or you could say that the part of the creature which was composed of
shadow probably didn't catch on the walls and corridors.
grimgard
Jamie Armstrong
"grimgard" <grim...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3B140B21...@prodigy.net...
>
>I would only comment that, although you addressed the
> matter in general, you didn't actually mention the specific argument
> that, if Balrogs had wings and were capable of flight, the Balrog would
> have flown away when Gandalf cast him down from the peak of Zirak-zigil.
> Personally, I find it to be a very weak argument, but it was brought up
> with surprising consistency during the Great Debates.
>
it did, but that they were useless when it came to flight.), and assuming
that it could use them to fly, they would have been broken by the impact of
hitting the water after the fall from the Bridge. Wings are rather fragile
things after all: falling all that way would certainly have caused them to
be damaged against the chasm walls, even before it hit the water.
Jamie
Conrad Dunkerson
news:3B136210...@earthlink.net...
> I thought this was really well put together, and I'd like to read
> the first five as well.
Thank you. The others can be found at;
1:
http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&selm=LEz55.1307%24kK.101300%40bgtn
sc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
2:
http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&selm=AU6c5.9879%24tI4.778649%40bgt
nsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
3: Volume 3 seems to be missing from Google - which would indicate
that they have some holes that weren't present in the Deja archive.
I'll have to see if I can track down a copy on my old computer or
from some other source.
4:
http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&selm=LoZj6.4319%24TD1.329840%40bgt
nsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
5:
http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&selm=R1em6.4082%24Ea1.314695%40bgt
nsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
Conrad Dunkerson
<REMOVETHISSPAMPROTE...@cramersystems.com> wrote in
message news:3b135751$0$12249$ed9e...@reading.news.pipex.net...
> Aragorn took a peak and made some statement about orcs being
> "accompanied by something larger, a great hill-troll I think".
> Whereupon the Balrog appears.
"For the moment they are hanging back, but there is something else
there. A great cave-troll I think, or more than one."
FotR, The Bridge of Khazad-dum
However, the Balrog does not show up for some time after that... and
they are in fact attacked by a large cave troll... though it never
manages to get into the room after they shut the door against it and
Frodo stabs it in the foot. As such, I think that what Aragorn saw
really was a troll... though the Balrog might have been lurking
further back.
> This leaves the question of why he thought it was bigger than the
> orcs and if it was as large as a troll, how it fitted through the
> corridors of orc-sized Moria?
Same way the trolls did presumably... because most of the passages
were quite large. The troll seemed large compared to the door frame,
so anything significantly LARGER than a troll would have had trouble
getting around... unless it was capable of changing form.
Bruce N. Hietbrink
"Conrad Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
snip
> III. Flying from Thangorodrim
snip the idea that "fly" can mean "flee" rather than "flap your
wings and rise into the air," as shown by:
> "He staggered and fell, grasped vainly at the stone, and slid into
> the abyss. 'Fly, you fools! ' he cried, and was gone."
> FotR, The Bridge of Khazad-Dum
No, Conrad, I've found the error in your thinking and
the answer to an age old question. It was just at this
point that Gandalf reallized the folly of having "nine
walkers," in that they will inevitably run into dangers
such as Balrogs. They should have taken the eagles to
Mordor after all. He was just trying to get this across
to Aragorn, but in the heat of battle and the later grief
over Gandalf's loss, Aragorn missed the point and they
continued walking. They were just lucky to run into
the "wisest of all the elves" who came up with the idea
of boats.
:)
Bruce
Conrad Dunkerson
news:3B140B21...@prodigy.net...
> This is clearly nothing more than rank speculation on your part,
> Conrad. Tolkien nevers states explicitly that there was no airport
> in the Shire.
If there were express trains (one of them operated by Glaurung) I
suppose we ought to consider the possibility of airplanes as well.
Still, Frodo doesn't mention his flight time and there isn't nearly
enough waiting around to constitute a remotely reasonable portrayal
of a commercial flight...
> Seriously, though, nice work. I can't imagine how long it must
> have taken you to dig out all those citations without an e-text
> version.
Thank you.... though I think it has taken something on the order of
a year (two?) to get the whole thing done. Mostly because of other
concerns of course, but yeah... lots and lots of reading and typing.
> I would only comment that, although you addressed the matter in
> general, you didn't actually mention the specific argument
> that, if Balrogs had wings and were capable of flight, the Balrog
> would have flown away when Gandalf cast him down from the peak of
> Zirak-zigil.
I think I referred to it in passing, but yeah that is one of the more
common 'why did it not fly' passages. I may try to rearrange that
section to refer to some of the specific instances and counters (too
wounded to fly for this case) usually given.
> Personally, I find it to be a very weak argument, but it was
> brought up with surprising consistency during the Great Debates.
Actually, it is a very strong argument... just easily countered.
If the Balrog was NOT too wounded to fly it certainly should have
either when it first reached the peak or, if it had decided to stop
fleeing and fight, then certainly when it was falling to its death...
only inability (either constant or brought on by wounds) can excuse
not flying in that case.
John Savard
<conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote, in part:
>An example of this 'simile to metaphor' progression can be seen in;
>"There the green floor ran on into the wood, and formed a wide space
>like a hall, roofed by the boughs of trees. Their great trunks ran
>like pillars down each side. In the middle there was a wood-fire
>blazing, and upon the tree-pillars torches with lights of gold and
>silver were burning steadily."
>FotR, Three is Company
>The passage 'great trunks ran like pillars' is a simile comparing the
>tree-trunks to pillars of a hall ('roofed by the boughs'). Then
>later the 'tree-pillars' are a metaphor referring back to these
>trunks. The 'non-wings' view is that the 'shadow like wings' and
>'wings from wall to wall' are a simile and metaphor in the same
>relation.
>Another example of this which is often cited comes from two lines in
>RotK - Battle of the Pelennor Fields;
>"...Easterlings with axes, and Variags of Khand, Southrons in
>scarlet, and out of Far Harad black men like half-trolls with white
>eyes and red tongues."
>This shows a simile describing the "men" of Far Harad as being "like
>half-trolls".
>"East rode the knights of Dol Amroth driving the enemy before them:
>troll-men and Variags and orcs that hated the sunlight."
>Now these same beings are referred to metaphorically as "troll-men"
>because of the earlier simile referring to their appearance.
And so, if the second time, there had been a reference to the
"shadow-wings" of the Balrog, this same process could have meant those
were just shadows that resembled wings. Given that Tolkien just wrote
"wings", though, it _seems_ like it did have wings, although I grant
that in either case it looks like clumsy writing, something Tolkien is
not generally guilty of. Thus, while I incline towards wings, I freely
admit I do not understand the passages well enough to come to a
definitive conclusion on the matter.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/frhome.htm
Steuard Jensen
> that they have some holes that weren't present in the Deja archive.
> I'll have to see if I can track down a copy on my old computer or
> from some other source.
Actually, I wouldn't be entirely sure that they don't have it; it may
just be failing to turn up in searches. I've found one or two posts
(including one of yours, though I'd have to dig ti figure out which)
which didn't show up in my search results but which I was later able
to retrieve from their archive by Message-ID. I sent them email
explaining the problem, so I suppose we can assume that they know
about it.
Hmm. Now that I look, though, I've looked it up by Message-ID and
it's still not there. Unless someone else beats me to it, I'll repost
your Volume 3 as a followup to this message.
Steuard Jensen
Steuard Jensen
seems to be missing from the Google Groups archive. I haven't
intended anything; everything below this line is Conrad's work. I
have trimmed out some less important headers.
-------------------------------------------------------
Reply-To: "Conrad Dunkerson" <con...@interactive.net>
From: "Conrad Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: The Truth About Balrogs - Volume 3
Message-ID: <1kVs5.8077$U41.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 22:26:05 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.25.125
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
What IS a Balrog?
Well, that's an easy question right? A Balrog is a fallen Maia.
Sometimes.
In point of fact, the 'fallen Maiar' origin for the Balrogs was a
fairly late development. In early texts they were made by Melkor;
"But the other Valar came seldom thither; and in the North Morgoth
built his strength, and gathered his demons about him. These were
the first made of his creatures: their hearts were of fire, and
they had whips of flame. The Gnomes in later days named them
Balrogs."
LROW, Quenta Silmarillion, 3a - Of the Coming of the Elves ~1937
It is commonly assumed that this idea of created Balrogs was
discarded long before LotR, but in truth the Quenta Silmarillion
passage endured, nearly unchanged, up through LQ1 circa 1951;
"But the other Valar came seldom thither; and in the North Melkor
built his strength, and gathered his demons about him. These were
the first made of his creatures: their hearts were of fire, but
they were cloaked in darkness, and terror went before them; they
had whips of flame. Balrogs they were named by Noldor in later
days."
MR, Later Quenta Silmarillion (I), 3 - Of the Coming of the Elves
Note the addition of 'cloaked in darkness' here... a feature which
first appears with the Moria Balrog. Indeed, by the time this
passage was written work on LotR had been completed and the
manuscript submitted to the publishers.
The Balrogs even remained creations after Tolkien decided that
there should be Maiar following Morgoth;
"~17 Now Melkor knew of all that was done; for even then he had
secret friends and spies among the Maiar whom he had converted to
his cause, and of these the chief, as after became known, was
Sauron, a great craftsman of the household of Aule."
Alternate form;
"Now Melkor knew all that was done; for even then he had secret
friends among the Maiar, whom he had converted to his cause,
whether in the first playing of the Ainulindale or afterwards in
Ea. Of these the chief, as afterwards became known, was Sauron, a
great craftsman of the household of Aule."
"~30 ... And in Utumno he wrought the race of demons whom the Elves
after named the Balrogs."
MR, The Annals of Aman ~1951
This last quotation was altered in a short typescript variant
(which CT refers to as AAm*) to finally introduce the Maiar
Balrogs;
"And in Utumno he multiplied the race of evil spirits that followed
him, the Umaiar, of whom the chief were those demons whom the Elves
afterwards named the Balrogath." [Side comment: Note the apparent
proper plural of 'Balrog']
MR, The Annals of Aman - Note to ~30 circa 1951
Thus, while the Balrog of Moria was a created being at the time
Tolkien wrote that section of the story, and for several years
thereafter it officially became one of the Maiar just prior to the
book's publication. That the Balrogs were a 'race' that could be
multiplied was later abandoned along with the title of 'Umaiar',
giving us the standard definition of Balrogs;
"For of the Maiar many were drawn to his splendour in the days of
his greatness, and remained in that allegiance down into his
darkness; and others he corrupted afterwards to his service with
lies and treacherous gifts. Dreadful among these spirits were the
Valaraukar, the scourges of fire that in Middle-earth were called
the Balrogs, demons of terror. Among those of his servants that
have names the greatest was that spirit whom the Eldar called
Sauron, or Gorthaur the Cruel."
Silm, Valaquenta - Of the Enemies
Christopher indicates in 'Morgoth's Ring LQ1 - Commentary on
Chapter 3 ~18' that this text above was something his father
referenced as the "true account" for the origins of the Balrogs.
In the same place he gives a revised text for LQ2, replacing the
LQ1 section quoted earlier;
"These were the (ealar) spirits who first adhered to him in the
days of his splendour, and became most like him in his corruption:
their hearts were of fire, but they were cloaked in darkness, and
terror went before them; they had whips of flame. Balrogs they were
named by the Noldor in later days. ... There is a footnote to the
word ealar in this passage: 'spirit' (not incarnate, which was fea,
S[indarin] fae). eala 'being'."
Strangely, the idea of Balrogs being able to multiply (and
receiving this power and their wills from Morgoth) reappears
several years later;
"* [footnote to the text] One of the reasons for his self-weakening
is that he has given to his 'creatures', Orcs, Balrogs, etc. power
of recuperation and multiplication. So that they will gather again
without further specific orders. Part of his native creative power
has gone out into making an independent evil growth out of his
control."
MR, Myths Transformed VI - Melkor Morgoth ~1955 - 1959
"See 'Melkor'. It will there be seen that the wills of Orcs and
Balrogs etc. are part of Melkor's power 'dispersed'. Their spirit
is one of hate. But hate is non-cooperative (except under direct
fear). Hence the rebellions, mutinies, etc. when Morgoth seems far
off. Orcs are beasts and Balrogs corrupted Maiar."
MR, Myths Transformed VIII - Orcs ~1955 - 1959
One unusual exception to the early conception of created Balrogs
was the unique case of 'Gothmog' being Morgoth's son;
"Gothmog 'was a son of Melko and the ogress Fluithuin and his name
is Strife-and-hatred, and he was Captain of the Balrogs and lord of
Melko's hosts ere fair Ecthelion slew him at the taking of
Gondolin. The Eldar named him Kosmoko or Kosomok(o), but 'tis a
name that fitteth their tongue no way and has an ill sound even in
our own rougher speech, said Elfrith [emended from Elfriniel].'(In
a list of names of the Valar associated with the tale of The Coming
of the Valar (I. 93) it is said that Melko had a son 'by Ulbandi'
called Kosomot; the early 'Qenya' dictionary gives Kosomoko =
Gnomish Gothmog, I.258. In the tale Gothmog is called the 'marshal'
of the hosts of Melko (p. 184).) In the later development of the
legends Gothmog was the slayer of Feanor, and in the Battle of
Unnumbered Tears it was he who slew Fingon and captured Hurin (The
Silmarillion pp. 1O7, 193, 195). He is not of course called later
'son of Melkor'; the 'Children of the Valar' was a feature of the
earlier mythology that my father discarded."
BoLT2, Fall of Gondolin - Commentary ~2 'Entries in the Name-list'
As this text was extremely early (~ 1917) it is possible that the
existence of a Balrog son for Morgoth indicates that at that very
early time the Balrogs were a bred demonic race of unspecified
origin... only later to become creations and then Maiar.
Matt Thrower
"o.thomson" <theo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B13D156...@hotmail.com...
oops, sorry, that was a typo :)
grimgard
Jamie Armstrong wrote:
Which is why I consider it to be a weak argument.
grimgard
grimgard
Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
> > Personally, I find it to be a very weak argument, but it was
> > brought up with surprising consistency during the Great Debates.
>
> Actually, it is a very strong argument... just easily countered.
> If the Balrog was NOT too wounded to fly it certainly should have
> either when it first reached the peak or, if it had decided to stop
> fleeing and fight, then certainly when it was falling to its death...
> only inability (either constant or brought on by wounds) can excuse
> not flying in that case.
Hmmm, either I don't seem to be communicating my points of view too well
or I'm having problems understanding others'. In my book, an argument
that is easily countered is a weak one. It doesn't really matter whether
or not the Balrog was wounded in the least, he must certainly have been
exhausted. Flight requires a great deal of energy.
grimgard
Jamie Armstrong
perfectly plausible.
Jamie
Aris Katsaris
>
>
> Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
>
> > > Personally, I find it to be a very weak argument, but it was
> > > brought up with surprising consistency during the Great Debates.
> >
> > Actually, it is a very strong argument... just easily countered.
> > If the Balrog was NOT too wounded to fly it certainly should have
> > either when it first reached the peak or, if it had decided to stop
> > fleeing and fight, then certainly when it was falling to its death...
> > only inability (either constant or brought on by wounds) can excuse
> > not flying in that case.
>
> Hmmm, either I don't seem to be communicating my points of view too well
> or I'm having problems understanding others'. In my book, an argument
> that is easily countered is a weak one.
Easily countered doesn't necessarily mean *well* countered.
Sure, you can say that the Balrog didn't fly because he was injured or
exhausted.
You countered it quite easily.
But you didn't counter it well, because you had to manufacture that reason
with
no supporting evidence. Simply plucked it out of thin air.
Overuse of that would be arguing backwards - having reached a decision and
trying to skew the evidence so that they fit into your theory, rather than
vice-versa.
Aris Katsaris
grimgard
Jamie Armstrong wrote:
Are you saying that it's perfectly plausible that, if the Balrog had wings, he
would have flown away after Gandalf cast him down from Zirak-zigil? I think the
flaws in the theory are glaring, but I'll repeat them if necessary.
grimgard
grimgard
Aris Katsaris wrote:
I disagree on all counts. After a long protracted battle with Gandalf, during
which Gandalf suffered injuries and/or exhaustion so severe that he died from
them, the Balrog was tossed off the top of the mountain. It seems to me
fairly clear that he probably wouldn't have had the strength to stand upright,
let alone fly away. Flight requires not only the use of undamaged wings and
undamaged muscles to operate the wings, but also a rather signifigant
expenditure of energy. Now while I can't prove definitively that the Balrog
was so damaged as to be incapable of flight, I really don't have to. The
argument put forth by many in the 'no-wing' camp is that the only reason the
Balrog didn't fly when Gandalf cast him down is because he didn't have wings.
All I have to demonstrate is that it is quite possible, even probable, in
fact, in this case, that the Balrog may well have had wings and may well have
been capable of flight and still have been unable to fly in this situation.
My side of the argument is absurdly easy, which is why I consider this
particular 'no-wing' argument to be a weak one, probably the weakest one
presented, for that matter. There are, in my opinion, far better 'no-wing'
arguments which are far more convincing.
grimgard
Jamie Armstrong
>
> Are you saying that it's perfectly plausible that, if the Balrog had
wings, he
> would have flown away after Gandalf cast him down from Zirak-zigil? I
think the
> flaws in the theory are glaring, but I'll repeat them if necessary.
>
but with the argument that if they did have them, the Balrog could have
flown from Zirak-zigil, and that therefore they could not have had them. Is
that correct?
I thought you were commenting on the argument I put forward, and were saying
that *that* was a weak argument.
Jamie
Aris Katsaris
>
>
> Aris Katsaris wrote:
>
> > grimgard <grim...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:3B155A51...@prodigy.net...
> > >
well
> > > or I'm having problems understanding others'. In my book, an argument
> > > that is easily countered is a weak one.
> >
> > Easily countered doesn't necessarily mean *well* countered.
> >
> > Sure, you can say that the Balrog didn't fly because he was injured or
> > exhausted.
> > You countered it quite easily.
> >
> > But you didn't counter it well, because you had to manufacture that
reason
> > with
> > no supporting evidence. Simply plucked it out of thin air.
> >
> > Overuse of that would be arguing backwards - having reached a decision
and
> > trying to skew the evidence so that they fit into your theory, rather
than
> > vice-versa.
> >
> > Aris Katsaris
>
> I disagree on all counts. After a long protracted battle with Gandalf,
after which the Balrog had the strength to turn and flee through the
corridors
of Moria...
> during
> which Gandalf suffered injuries and/or exhaustion so severe
that he still had the strength to chase the Balrog through said corridors
> the Balrog was tossed off the top of the mountain.
the Balrog turned to fight when he reached the peak of the mountain, rather
than
choose to keep on fleeing by simply flying away.
Aris Katsaris
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
>Are you saying that it's perfectly plausible that, if the Balrog had wings,
he
>would have flown away after Gandalf cast him down from Zirak-zigil? I
think the
>flaws in the theory are glaring, but I'll repeat them if necessary.
If the Balrog had had wings, it would have flown off to pollinate those
deathly pale flowers in Morgul Vale. We should all be grateful that it did
not have anything of the sort.
Öjevind
grimgard
Aris Katsaris wrote:
>
> > I disagree on all counts. After a long protracted battle with Gandalf,
>
> after which the Balrog had the strength to turn and flee through the
> corridors
> of Moria...
>
That was NOT the end of the battle! They clearly fought on the peak of the
mountain.
>
> > during
> > which Gandalf suffered injuries and/or exhaustion so severe
>
> that he still had the strength to chase the Balrog through said corridors
>
> > the Balrog was tossed off the top of the mountain.
>
> the Balrog turned to fight when he reached the peak of the mountain, rather
> than
> choose to keep on fleeing by simply flying away.
>
> Aris Katsaris
Circular logic. You're assuming that he *could* have flown away if he had
wanted to. You're not making a lot of sense here.
grimgard
Aris Katsaris
>
> Aris Katsaris wrote:
>
> > > I disagree on all counts. After a long protracted battle with
Gandalf,
> >
> > after which the Balrog had the strength to turn and flee through the
> > corridors
> > of Moria...
>
> That was NOT the end of the battle! They clearly fought on the peak of
the
> mountain.
Why? Why did they fight there? Why did the Balrog not flee? He was fleeing
before...
> > > during
> > > which Gandalf suffered injuries and/or exhaustion so severe
> >
> > that he still had the strength to chase the Balrog through said
corridors
> >
> > > the Balrog was tossed off the top of the mountain.
> >
> > the Balrog turned to fight when he reached the peak of the mountain,
rather
> > than
> > choose to keep on fleeing by simply flying away.
> >
> > Aris Katsaris
>
> Circular logic. You're assuming that he *could* have flown away if he had
> wanted to.
The exact opposite: I'm an anti-winger. I believe that he could not fly
whether he wanted to or not.
On the other you claim that he could fly in general, it was only the
specific
circumstances which prevented him from flying, because he was either
too exhausted or/and injured, etc.
In short you've manufactured facts. You don't *know* that he was too
exhausted too fly, you simply assume it because that's the only way you
can explain that he didn't fly away even though he probably wanted to.
The same way that he didn't fly out of the abyss because his wings were
too cramped or something, or because he enjoyed falling or something.
Another fact that people plucked out of thin air, because they enjoy arguing
backwards, twisting facts so that they fit their theories.
Occam's razor demands that we accept the simplest explanation. Perhaps
he didn't fly because he *couldn't*. Not then, not ever.
Aris Katsaris
Conrad Dunkerson
> In my book, an argument that is easily countered is a weak one.
Only if you take the 'counter' as decisive. I think of a 'counter'
as an argument put up in contradiction... it might be easy to come
up with such an argument, but if that argument is itself 'easily
countered' it could still be 'weak'.
> It doesn't really matter whether or not the Balrog was wounded in
> the least, he must certainly have been exhausted. Flight requires
> a great deal of energy.
Ah, but it had enough energy to fight a ferocious battle with Gandalf
on the peak. If it was fleeing (as Gandalf claimed) then surely the
energy it used to battle Gandalf in a display of pyrotechnics seen
for miles around for somewhere between 24 and 72 HOURS should have
been sufficient to simply fly away... it can't have been THAT
'exhausted' when the battle on the peak started. So then we get the
quick counter that it didn't WANT to fly away at that point... which
is likewise countered with the question of why it had been running
from Gandalf for the past several days if it wasn't trying to get
away... which I've only ever seen countered by the suggesting that,
contrary to Gandalf's claim, the Balrog was not >fleeing< from him,
but only leading him to an open area where it would (somehow) be to
the Balrog's advantage... which I'd generally counter with, 'well I
think the hall of fire with all the Orcs and Trolls might have worked
a little better'... but then maybe the Balrog just wasn't too bright.
Packrat
and I've got Steuard's repost of Vol. 3. As I said before, these make for some
really interesting reading. Thanks again.
-Packrat
--
`,''`. `, ; : pack...@earthlink.net
: ; .''`. .''` :,,' `.''`. .''`. ,.:., "...a stranger and exile
;`'' : : : ;``. : : : : on the earth."
,' ``' ` `.., ,' ; ; ``' ` ;
grimgard
Aris Katsaris wrote:
> grimgard <grim...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:3B17E5A9...@prodigy.net...
> >
> > Aris Katsaris wrote:
> >
> > > > I disagree on all counts. After a long protracted battle with
> Gandalf,
> > >
> > > after which the Balrog had the strength to turn and flee through the
> > > corridors
> > > of Moria...
> >
> > That was NOT the end of the battle! They clearly fought on the peak of
> the
> > mountain.
>
> Why? Why did they fight there? Why did the Balrog not flee? He was fleeing
> before...
>
Why didn't he flee in the first place instead of pursuing the Company to the
Bridge of Khazad-dum? Presumably he was more intent on fighting than fleeing.
He fled from Gandalf throughout the tunnels of Moria the whole time, but Gandalf
was also hot on his heels the whole time. He may have simply been leading him
to where he wanted him to go. He may have been buying time so that he could
'burst into new flame.' It may well be that, if Gandalf had stopped pursuing
him, he would have stopped and turned to fight immediately. We have no way to
know his motivation. But it seems clear that, if mere escape were his intent,
he could have achieved that by simply not assaulting the Company in the first
place.
> > > > during
> > > > which Gandalf suffered injuries and/or exhaustion so severe
> > >
> > > that he still had the strength to chase the Balrog through said
> corridors
> > >
> > > > the Balrog was tossed off the top of the mountain.
> > >
> > > the Balrog turned to fight when he reached the peak of the mountain,
> rather
> > > than
> > > choose to keep on fleeing by simply flying away.
> > >
> > > Aris Katsaris
> >
> > Circular logic. You're assuming that he *could* have flown away if he had
> > wanted to.
>
> The exact opposite: I'm an anti-winger. I believe that he could not fly
> whether he wanted to or not.
>
> On the other you claim that he could fly in general, it was only the
> specific
> circumstances which prevented him from flying, because he was either
> too exhausted or/and injured, etc.
>
No, I don't. I'm in the no-wing camp myself. I simply happen to feel that this
particular argument against winged Balrogs is absurd.
>
> In short you've manufactured facts. You don't *know* that he was too
> exhausted too fly, you simply assume it because that's the only way you
> can explain that he didn't fly away even though he probably wanted to.
>
I haven't manufactured anything. We're not talking about facts here, we're
talking about reasoning. If there were facts involved, then Tolkien would have
written "The Balrog would have flown away, but he was too exhausted," or "The
only reason the Balrog didn't fly away at this point is because he didn't have
wings." And it stands to reason that, after a battle which lasted several days
and in which the winner was so badly damaged that he died shortly thereafter,
the loser would certainly have been exhausted. It's by no means a certainty,
but then, nothing in this entire debate is a certainty. It is far more likely
than not that the Balrog was exhausted. In order to use this argument
effectively for the 'no-wing' camp, it is necessary to demonstrate the
probability that the *only* reason that the Balrog did not fly away at this
point is because he didn't have wings and was therefore incapable of flight. As
long as alternatives exist which are reasonable and likely, then it's a weak
argument.
>
> The same way that he didn't fly out of the abyss because his wings were
> too cramped or something, or because he enjoyed falling or something.
> Another fact that people plucked out of thin air, because they enjoy arguing
> backwards, twisting facts so that they fit their theories.
>
The argument, which I suspect you know as well as I do, is that, if we take
Tolkien's statement that "its wings were spread from wall to wall" as literal,
then the Balrog's wing span wouold be too great to be able to achieve flight in
the cramped confines of the abyss. My problem is not with the logic in this
argument, but rather in the fact that I find it ridiculous to picture a creature
of man-size with such an enormous wing span. I think it would look ludicrous.
>
> Occam's razor demands that we accept the simplest explanation. Perhaps
> he didn't fly because he *couldn't*. Not then, not ever.
>
Yeah, everybody likes to cite Occam's razor like it really has some signifigance
in a work of fiction. The main problem with applying that argument to this
debate is that it requires a more complete grasp of the facts than we have
access to. Trying to determine the correct answer by applying Occam's razor or
the Beatiful Theory or any other such description of 'common sense' is that it
just doesn't work in the absence of data - that's how we came up with
phlogiston.
grimgard
grimgard
Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
Actually, we're talking about two different arguments here. The first
argument, which I described as weak, is why the Balrog didn't simply fly
away when Gandalf cast him from the peak. The second argument, why the
Balrog didn't fly away when they first emerged on the peak, is a much
better one. But, in this particular argument, I feel that the 'no-wing'
camp has the burden of proof, since they're trying to demonstrate that
the *only* reason the Balrog didn't fly away is because he couldn't. If
I were a prosecutor, I don't think I would bother to take the case to
court if that was my only argument. Of course, if you have other,
stronger, arguments to present as well, it certainly doesn't hurt to
throw this one in to beef up your case, but, looking at all the arguments
for and against Balrog wings, I find this particular one to be rather
weak, which is all I was saying in the first place. I had no intention
of re-opening the whole debate, especially from the pro-wing side.
grimgard
Conrad Dunkerson
news:msHQ6.75$C4.4302@uchinews...
> First and foremost: wow, cool, and thanks! I like the organization
> of the essay, and I also appreciate the substantial blocks of
> quotes. I think it actually _is_ helpful to show that a given
> usage is reasonably common in that way. Anyway, this is good
> stuff.
Thanks. The 'by passage' organization works better for the 'big'
issues than it does for some of the less common points, but overall
I think it helps to split things out into sections.
> I'd love it if you could find a better example of this. The fact
> that it's "tree-pillars" rather than "pillars" used later feels
> like it substantially weakens the argument.
Bleh. Someone else said this so I guess such a counter will be
presented, though personally I find it exceedingly weak. That he
specified 'tree-pillars' doesn't change that they were not in fact
tree-pillars and he is here using a metaphor based on the earlier
simile... but as you note, the minor difference in presentation is
taken as a reason to consider the passages different in nature
(which I disagree with on the simile/metaphor reasoning just
presented) so I suppose I will have to look for another example.
Which is somewhat daunting, but I'll see if I can come up with
anything 'non hyphenated'.
> If better passages are hard to find in Tolkien's works, it might
> actually be worthwhile to insert an artificial example of the
> construction before you start quoting, just to make sure the idea
> is clear (the "fruit tastes like an apple" example that I gave in
> the current AFT Balrog thread could be good
Possibly, but then I'd anticipate the claim that Tolkien would never
write anything like that. :)
I probably do need to make the word relationships I am suggesting
clearer... which should help with the 'tree-pillar' example too as
it DOES fit the pattern. It just doesn't use precisely the same
term for both elements.
> The troll-men example that you cite immediately after this is also
> a good one, but as you point out, it too has been read in ways that
> don't reflect the simile -> metaphor technique.
Right, I actually included that one largely as a lead in to the
view that there could be two separate issues here... a shadow which
was like wings and completely unrelated actual wings. I've never
much liked that one as it seems to me very unlikely Tolkien intended
that, but it's amongst the extant views.
> I feel like this section could stand to be rephrased somewhat, but
> that may just be because I'm used to the way that I usually present
> it (as I recently did in the AFT Balrog thread). Perhaps I'm just
> looking for a slightly less condensed discussion of this point; it
> has been brought up enough (to our great frustration) that a firm
> and clear explanation of why it doesn't apply is probably a good
> idea.
Yeah, I always struggle with how (or whether) to present arguments
which are common but contain a factual inaccuracy. On one hand I am
inclined to exclude them entirely, but then they remain active. As
such I try to show evidence in contradiction without putting in
extensive details. Another example from a different essay was the
common idea that the 'pro-pointed ears' quotations pre-dated TH &
LotR by such a degree as to have no relation. In that case I was
able to solve it just by citing when they were actually written
(shortly after work on LotR began) without getting into the claim to
the contrary. This one is rather more complex as we are dealing with
a concept that isn't always clear to begin with being applied over
several passages. My goal was to give anyone familiar with the
argument enough info to show why it doesn't pan out without devoting
a great deal of detail to the issue. Ideally, such things should
either 'go away' or be modified such that they DO present a valid
argument. I'll ponder how that section can be clarified a bit...
maybe what I'll do is 'formula-ize' all of these quotations to show
how the elements interact. I've had some success with that in the
past.
> This is the one place where I'm uncertain on the value of the sheer
> number of other sources used.
Hmmm, yes I'd wondered if I wasn't overdoing it. Think I've got a
solution though. I'll pick one particularly clear passage as
representative and then just list off the existence of similar cases
in the other works. Shows the fact of such usage in the one
quotation and the frequency in the listing.
> But, clearly this means that Luthien had wings on her feet! :)
No doubt.
> Seriously, though, my only complaint here is that you've cited ten
> lines of the poem for the sake of the second to last word in the
> quote.
Heh, this is the point at which I'd begun to rush a bit. I usually
make a last pass through and consider the presentation of my
quotations (a bit more / a bit less). Still, I mostly just liked
the passage. Still, I mean to make adjustments to lengths.
> The same might go for some of the non-Tolkien quotes earlier; I
> didn't think to look at them so closely.)
Actually, most of those I >did< cut down as I didn't want to go on
at length with the non-Tolkien stuff.
> I haven't actually read Milton, so I don't really know the context
> here, but I'd just point out that I'm not clear on what exactly in
> this passage has wings (Satan and his Powers, presumably, but I
> don't know who those Powers are, and I haven't always associated
> Satan himself with wings).
Good point. I may have to search back for an earlier passage which
indicates they had wings, or just state it.
> Well, that isn't perfect either, but the point is that it could be
> worthwhile to make it a little clearer that the poetic imagery is a
> consistent image of flight (that is, to rephrase this yet again,
> incorporate the repetition into the counter-argument explicitly).
Yes, I agree. As I said in my follow-up, I didn't go through and
check the phrasing, so some of it is quite clunky.
> Personally, I might not quote _all_ of the intermediate forms, but
> rather quote the first and last non-flight examples with a
> statement that the intermediate forms also don't use any flight
> imagery.
Hrrrmm... here I'm somewhat resistant - and at that, I DIDN'T quote
>all< of the intermediate forms. I had several others, but I decided
to go with just the more descriptive passages (leaving out the 'he
is rescued by Balrogs' sort). There aren't THAT many passages, and
I think there is an impact to showing the many versions Tolkien wrote
without flight imagery beyond simply stating that such exist. I'll
think about it.
> The impact is greater the way that you've chosen to present it
> here, but I tend to throw out the pre-LotR drafts entirely when
> contemplating this issue.
Heh, well we agree on the impact... but I've never been fond of the
'rejected material' argument as the way Tolkien >had< written it can
certainly give us insights into what he might have meant in his later
(often more poetic) versions. At that... the Annals of Aman variant
which you suggested I snip out WAS post-LotR... and no wing/flight
imagery.
> I often make more of Gimli's phrasing here: "the shadow in Moria -
> the shadow of the Balrog" (and also his description of the unknown
> thing as "the shadow" rather than "whatever cast the shadow"). I
> take this passage as almost unambiguous evidence that whatever else
> there was about the Balrog, it had some unusually significant
> "shadow".
Hmmm, an important point in relation to the view that the Balrog's
'shadow' was JUST a shadow. I didn't go into the evidences against
that one in great detail as we don't see it too much, but I could
probably expand it out and include this bit.
> [Interesting side note: is it possible that the Nazgul (maybe just
> when on their flying steeds) actually exuded some sort of extended
> "shadow" themselves? I'm thinking in particular of the death of
> the Witch King's mount in the battle of the Pelennor fields: "and
> with its fall the shadow passed away."
I tend to think of this more as a 'shadow on the soul'... they were
so dreadful that the light seemed to dim for those near them and all
was lost and hopeless. Still, that it departed with the death of the
STEED is rather odd.
> Or simply that his "guard" was there either as an elite unit under
> his immediate command, or that they were there to rescue him if he
> were injured... quite a few other arguments can be made against
> this one in addition to the ones that you've already listd.
I'll include those possibilities - though I suspect the point is
somewhat academic as I think it likely that Christopher wrote that
passage.
> Or they may not have actually been on the ground at all: I can
> certainly imagine Glaurung's "train" extending behind him in three
> dimensions (I'm imagining a sort of wedge shape, with Glaurung at
> its point).
Possibly... though in at least one version there were Orcs behind
the Balrogs. In any case, I think it is reaching that they'd
maintain an aerial position behind a land-bound creature.
> Don't people also often say, "swifter than eagles", and that sort
> of thing? As discussed under the Hithlum passage, flight is often
> poetically associated with speed, so "swifter than Balrogs" could
> _very_ easily refer to Balrogs as flying creatures.
I should clarify this section then... the relevant word is not
'swifter' but "RAN". It is taken to imply that Balrogs RUN at great
speed, and thus to suggest that they are land-bound. However, again
this may well have been written by Christopher.
> I actually find that fairly significant, as I can't shake the
> feeling that a Balrog could pluck and eat most eagles for lunch.
> Still, the First Age eagles were awfully impressive, so this may be
> a bit uncharitable of me.
Thorondor was awesome, but none of the others were ever noted as
being of similar power. Still, even if Balrogs weren't a match for
Eagles (which I'd think unlikely) they still ought to have been able
to use flight to tremendous advantage if they had it. Tolkien was
clearly aware of this as he described the devastating impact of the
flying dragons.
> Drat it... I _liked_ this quote for the no-flight position, too.
> However, your objection here is quite sound, I think. I still do
> appreciate the points you make in (partial) defense of this
> passage, though, and despite my readiness to discard earlier texts
> I'm hesitant to do so in this case.
It does seem difficult to do so because of the already noted absence
of any passage where Morgoth uses an aerial force other than the
dragons. The way I view this is that while the Balrogs COULD have
been redone with wings there is no extant version of the mythology in
which they WERE. We must then either speculate what it would have
been like, assume that he would not have made the change, or split
M-E into LotR having a winged Balrog and everything else having
wingless Balrogs (even the 'Hithlum passage' as reading that as
winged would be inconsistent with the mythology around it).
> Good point. I actually feel like there is a reasonable amount of
> weak and circumstantial evidence that they _couldn't_ fly without
> transforming to a shape that could do so "naturally", but I haven't
> tried to assemble it together. Still, I feel like it's an open
> enough question at this point that I'll leave it in the FAQ as an
> easy way to play up the ambiguity of the issue (and perhaps as an
> invitation to others to make a good argument for or against the
> idea).
The biggest problem is that most of the detailed info we have about
actions of the Ainur themselves (barring the Istari) comes from the
'pre LotR materials' and there is thus always a ready excuse for
dismissing it.
> And that it may have wanted to deal with Gandalf as its chief
> priority in particular.
I've never seen the basis for that one... if it could fly it could
deal with Gandalf most easily by flying over to the army of Orcs and
Trolls after it had lassoed him. Unless it could not carry that much
weight... in which case it could have dropped him, wiped out the
rest of the fellowship without much trouble, and then brought it's
army along to finish Gandalf off down in the deep passages where he'd
have been completely lost and alone.
> Of course, that may have just been surprise, or even distress that
> it had to choose which foes to fight rather than taking the whole
> company one at a time. It may have even been after the Ring, but
> assumed that Gandalf (as the most powerful person in the party)
> held it... but been sufficiently uncertain that it didn't want to
> choose between them.
Hmmm... but the Balrog should have known that Gandalf wasn't going
anywhere. It knew those deep passages and should have been aware
that Gandalf would not be able to find his own way out anytime soon.
No need to choose who to wipe out... if it could fly it could get
them all by going after the fellowship first.
> He could also be leaving the term deliberately ambiguous, as I do
> in the FAQ. (I use '"wings"' with precisely that intent... well,
> and because I wanted to make myself happier with my claim that we
> agree that the Balrog had them. :) )
Good point, I should make it clear that he could be indicating
uncertainty on the issue.
> The later change from "him" to "it" does weaken this point, but
> it's an interesting one and it doesn't get brought up very often.
Hmmm? You mean the change from 'him' to 'it' in the published
version? Actually, I think that strengthens the point... 'the
Balrog halted facing him [Gandalf] and the shadow spread out about
him [Gandalf] like great wings.' I'm guessing that you are
suggesting Christopher might have been wrong and the second 'him'
intended to indicate the Balrog? I don't think so as Christopher is
correct that JRRT had used 'it' consistently up to that point and
had already used the pronoun 'him' in the sentence unambiguously
referring to Gandalf. As such, that the same image was applied to
Gandalf and the Balrog strengthens the view that it was just
shadowplay (assuming Gandalf did not sprout wings) - though JRRT
>could< have used the same image in a different way.
> Well concluded. :) Thanks again for a great discussion (and timely,
> too), and for the considerable effort that is very clear from what
> you've presented here. As I've said before, I'm quite interested
> in including your full "Truth About Balrogs" series on my webpage
> as a sort of topical "mini-FAQ" (along with my Bombadil essay), and
> perhaps linking to both of those from the Tolkien Newsgroups FAQ.
Please do. I always mean to get around to putting up a web-page,
but never quite do - despite mucking about with HTML quite a bit for
work. I'll get to it eventually (after the twenty or so projects
preceding it), but in the interim if other people are willing to do
the work for me... I shall not object. :)
Conrad Dunkerson
> Quoth "Conrad Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net>;
>> ...just in the half hour it took to format the thing for Usenet
>> line lengths.
> Hmm. What program are you using to write this?
Microsoft Word... and yeah I could set up a macro or set the margins
and save it to a format that produces hard returns. However, I
USUALLY use the 'formatting' time to make a last read through and
perform adjustments - so it doesn't bother me. Just a side effect
of pushing this one out a bit at the end there.
Conrad Dunkerson
news:3b142b6b...@news.powersurfr.com...
> And so, if the second time, there had been a reference to the
> "shadow-wings" of the Balrog, this same process could have meant
> those were just shadows that resembled wings. Given that Tolkien
> just wrote "wings", though, it _seems_ like it did have wings
Bleh. 'tree trunks like pillars' is a simile and 'tree-pillars'
is a metaphor. That Tolkien did not PHRASE this construction in
EXACTLY the same way he did the Balrog passage does not in any way
mean that they cannot be using the same kind of construction. To me
that seems grasping at straws. However, you aren't the only one to
suggest it so I'll try to find a simile > metaphor example where
Tolkien doesn't include a hyphen.
> although I grant that in either case it looks like clumsy writing,
> something Tolkien is not generally guilty of.
If LotR were a technical manual this would be clumsy writing. For
a fictional tale... I dunno. Should we assume that Tolkien wrote the
books with the intent of making his meaning clear in all cases? I
don't think he did. I believe he was deliberately vague and
'mysterious' if you will on MANY occasions.
> Thus, while I incline towards wings, I freely admit I do not
> understand the passages well enough to come to a definitive
> conclusion on the matter.
We agree on that... without Tolkien to clarify, anyone who can come
to a definitive conclusion on this matter does so by closing their
mind to the other possibilities.
Conrad Dunkerson
> Actually, I wouldn't be entirely sure that they don't have it; it
> may just be failing to turn up in searches. I've found one or two
> posts (including one of yours, though I'd have to dig ti figure out
> which) which didn't show up in my search results but which I was
> later able to retrieve from their archive by Message-ID.
Yeah, I have run into that too... though in some cases I've also
been able to find them by searching on strings which occur ONLY in
that message and no others. I generally like the Google search
engine, but there is something a little quirky going on with it.
> Hmm. Now that I look, though, I've looked it up by Message-ID and
> it's still not there. Unless someone else beats me to it, I'll
> repost your Volume 3 as a followup to this message.
Thank you. I've got a copy somewhere around here, but I often make
last minute stylistic changes while actually posting - and thus the
archived copies are always the most 'up to date'.
John Savard
<conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote, in part:
>That Tolkien did not PHRASE this construction in
>EXACTLY the same way he did the Balrog passage does not in any way
>mean that they cannot be using the same kind of construction. To me
>that seems grasping at straws.
Well, not only didn't he use a hyphenated term, but there was also no
other method of indicating that he wasn't referring to actual wings
pure and simple on the second occasion. Metaphors do not usually have
the appearance of simple declarative statements of fact.
Many things were left mysterious in LotR, but usually not things main
characters directly encountered with their senses during the action of
the story.
As I noted in another thread on this, it _is_ strange that the Balrog,
with such an enormous wingspan, couldn't fly - or at least glide, or
parachute with its wings - even to save its life.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/frhome.htm
Aris Katsaris
>
>
> Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
>
> > "grimgard" <grim...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:3B155A51...@prodigy.net...
> > on the peak. If it was fleeing (as Gandalf claimed) then surely the
> > energy it used to battle Gandalf in a display of pyrotechnics seen
> > for miles around for somewhere between 24 and 72 HOURS should have
> > been sufficient to simply fly away... it can't have been THAT
> > 'exhausted' when the battle on the peak started. So then we get the
> > quick counter that it didn't WANT to fly away at that point... which
> > is likewise countered with the question of why it had been running
> > from Gandalf for the past several days if it wasn't trying to get
> > away... which I've only ever seen countered by the suggesting that,
> > contrary to Gandalf's claim, the Balrog was not >fleeing< from him,
> > but only leading him to an open area where it would (somehow) be to
> > the Balrog's advantage... which I'd generally counter with, 'well I
> > think the hall of fire with all the Orcs and Trolls might have worked
> > a little better'... but then maybe the Balrog just wasn't too bright.
>
> Actually, we're talking about two different arguments here. The first
> argument, which I described as weak, is why the Balrog didn't simply fly
> away when Gandalf cast him from the peak. The second argument, why the
> Balrog didn't fly away when they first emerged on the peak, is a much
> better one. But, in this particular argument, I feel that the 'no-wing'
> camp has the burden of proof, since they're trying to demonstrate that
> the *only* reason the Balrog didn't fly away is because he couldn't. If
> I were a prosecutor, I don't think I would bother to take the case to
> court if that was my only argument.
I think the idea is that "no Balrog has even been seen flying, and atleast
two perished by falling from great heights".
I believe the burden on proof is on the "can-fly" camp. There's about as
much evidence that Felarof could fly, as there is about the Balrog.
There were wings on the feet of Felarof after all... :-)
Aris Katsaris
Aris Katsaris
>
>
> Aris Katsaris wrote:
>
> > grimgard <grim...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:3B17E5A9...@prodigy.net...
> > >
> > > Aris Katsaris wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I disagree on all counts. After a long protracted battle with
> > Gandalf,
> > > >
> > > > after which the Balrog had the strength to turn and flee through the
> > > > corridors
> > > > of Moria...
> > >
> > > That was NOT the end of the battle! They clearly fought on the peak
of
> > the
> > > mountain.
> >
> > Why? Why did they fight there? Why did the Balrog not flee? He was
fleeing
> > before...
> >
>
> Why didn't he flee in the first place instead of pursuing the Company to
the
> Bridge of Khazad-dum? Presumably he was more intent on fighting than
fleeing.
> He fled from Gandalf throughout the tunnels of Moria the whole time, but
Gandalf
> was also hot on his heels the whole time.
You are reversing cause and effect. Gandalf was hot on his heels exactly
because
the Balrog was fleeing, and he was Gandalf's only hope of not getting lost.
> He may have simply been leading him
> to where he wanted him to go.
"may" #1.
> He may have been buying time so that he could
> 'burst into new flame.'
"may" #2
> It may well be that, if Gandalf had stopped pursuing
> him, he would have stopped and turned to fight immediately.
"may" #3.
> We have no way to
> know his motivation. But it seems clear that, if mere escape were his
intent,
> he could have achieved that by simply not assaulting the Company in the
first
> place.
Theories.
1) He decided to fight, then when his opponent was too strong, he tried to
flee
until he could not flee any more.
2) He decided to fight, then he decided to flee, then for some reason that
we
don't know he stopped trying to flee and he decided to fight again.
Theory #2 adds a plot-hole into the work that needs to be filled by one of
many
"mays". Theory #1 has no such mystery ingredient and thus makes much more
sense.
What people are doing by supporting #2 is adding a plot-hole which needn't
even be there.
> In order to use this argument
> effectively for the 'no-wing' camp, it is necessary to demonstrate the
> probability that the *only* reason that the Balrog did not fly away at
this
> point is because he didn't have wings and was therefore incapable of
flight.
Well, if I say "why didn't Frodo and Sam just fly down that cliff?" I hardly
think
it's necessary for me to prove that the *only* reason they did not fly down
is
that they did not have wings. The burden of proof is supposed to be on the
other side which says "they can fly, they simply didn't/couldn't at the
moment"
> > Occam's razor demands that we accept the simplest explanation. Perhaps
> > he didn't fly because he *couldn't*. Not then, not ever.
>
> Yeah, everybody likes to cite Occam's razor like it really has some
signifigance
> in a work of fiction.
Actually a work of fiction is one of the few places where I'd try to use
Occam's razor.
It's fiction that needs to make sense, it's fiction which is created by an
author who
hopefully strives to make atleast some sense.
You can give a thousand reasons why the Balrog never ever used his wings.
It'd
be more difficult to explain why *Tolkien* never had the Balrog use said
wings.
Occam's razor actually works *better* in fiction than in the real world.
Aris Katsaris
Aris Katsaris
John Savard <jsa...@ecn.ab.SBLOK.ca.nowhere> wrote in message
>
> Metaphors do not usually have
> the appearance of simple declarative statements of fact.
"there were wings upon the feet of his steed, Felarof..."
Aris Katsaris
Conrad Dunkerson
> Metaphors do not usually have the appearance of simple declarative
> statements of fact.
Actually, yes they are. Last I checked... that's what made them
metaphors rather than similes.
'His hands were hard as stone' is a simile
'His hands were made of stone' is a metaphor
The second is stated directly and can be confused for a declarative
statement of fact... without outside knowledge we don't know whether
his hands really were made of stone or were just hard/strong and
being compared to stone through a metaphor.
The same is true in the case of the Balrog. The line 'its wings
were spread from wall to wall' could be a 'declarative statement of
fact' or it could be a metaphor referring to the shadow. Metaphors
can be used in that way, and the other examples show that Tolkien
DID use them in that way... but there is no conclusive means of
determining whether he was doing so in the Balrog scene or not.
Spiny2K+1
>"John Savard" <jsa...@ecn.ab.SBLOK.ca.nowhere> wrote in message
>news:3b191bdf...@news.powersurfr.com...
>
>> Metaphors do not usually have the appearance of simple declarative
>> statements of fact.
>
>Actually, yes they are. Last I checked... that's what made them
>metaphors rather than similes.
>
>'His hands were hard as stone' is a simile
>'His hands were made of stone' is a metaphor
>
>The second is stated directly and can be confused for a declarative
>statement of fact... without outside knowledge we don't know whether
>his hands really were made of stone or were just hard/strong and
>being compared to stone through a metaphor.
But your example's not from the text, is it? Tolkien's not James
Joyce; he's a writer who uses language traditionally and is
uninterested in breaking new stylistic ground. He usually signifies
his authorial intent, whether using "tree-pillars" to make clear that
he's using metaphor, or clearly announcing that Sam is seeing with
vision that is Other. More rarely, as in an example cited in this
thread concerning the winged feet of a steed, he relies on the
reader's experience of the world: first, that horses do exist in the
real world and do not have wings on their feet, and secondly, that
winged-feet as a metaphor for speed is so well established in Western
culture that it borders on cliche (since, at least, the Greeks
invented Hermes three or four thousand years ago). Tolkien was not
writing for illiterates who had never encountered the cliche of winged
feet before.
>The same is true in the case of the Balrog. The line 'its wings
>were spread from wall to wall' could be a 'declarative statement of
>fact' or it could be a metaphor referring to the shadow.
Why do the anti-wingers always and invariably strip this phrase of its
context? The complete line, of course, is
"It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew
itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to
wall; but Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed
small, and altogether alone: grey and bent, like a wizened tree before
the onset of a storm."
What's going on here? The sentence is almost palpable in its
physicality: a great beast rising up, spreading its wings and dwarfing
its enemy. The sole figure of speech is the simile at the end. The
NoWingers are accusing Tolkien of being a clumsy writer who shifts
from the literal to the metaphoric to the literal to the figurative,
with no signal to the reader, within a single sentence. I challenge
anyone to find another instance like that in any of Tolkien's
writings. Tolkien is simply not the sort of bad writer that the forces
of winglessness insist he is.
> Metaphors
>can be used in that way,
Perhaps, but not in this specific instance, with literal descriptions
before and after, within the same sentence.
>and the other examples show that Tolkien
>DID use them in that way...
No, they don't. Keep looking.
>but there is no conclusive means of
>determining whether he was doing so in the Balrog scene or not.
Sure there is. Simply read what Tolkien wrote. Don't overthink it, and
most certainly don't torture it into meaning something to match your
own desires.
grimgard
Aris Katsaris wrote:
No, I'm merely stating a fact. The entire time that the Balrog fled through the
tunnels, Gandalf was close behind. Was the Balrog really trying to get away?
If so, he was remarkably unsuccessful, yet continued to try for an awfully long
time.
How neatly you simply eliminate all the possibilities which don't fit your
argument. You should really go into cosmology.
>
> > In order to use this argument
> > effectively for the 'no-wing' camp, it is necessary to demonstrate the
> > probability that the *only* reason that the Balrog did not fly away at
> this
> > point is because he didn't have wings and was therefore incapable of
> flight.
>
> Well, if I say "why didn't Frodo and Sam just fly down that cliff?" I hardly
> think
> it's necessary for me to prove that the *only* reason they did not fly down
> is
> that they did not have wings. The burden of proof is supposed to be on the
> other side which says "they can fly, they simply didn't/couldn't at the
> moment"
>
If Tolkien ever described Frodo and Sam as having wings, then I certainly think
it would be necessary for you to prove that the *only* reason they did not fly
down is that they did not have wings.
>
> > > Occam's razor demands that we accept the simplest explanation. Perhaps
> > > he didn't fly because he *couldn't*. Not then, not ever.
> >
> > Yeah, everybody likes to cite Occam's razor like it really has some
> signifigance
> > in a work of fiction.
>
> Actually a work of fiction is one of the few places where I'd try to use
> Occam's razor.
> It's fiction that needs to make sense, it's fiction which is created by an
> author who
> hopefully strives to make atleast some sense.
>
The only reason that Occam's razor has any validity in attempting to 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. If you want to start applying the physics of the real world to this
argument, then it's virtually impossible that a creature the size of a man could
fly at all unless its bones were hollow. Then again, it's even more unlikely
that a creature the size of a dragon could fly, let alone breathe fire.
>
> You can give a thousand reasons why the Balrog never ever used his wings.
> It'd
> be more difficult to explain why *Tolkien* never had the Balrog use said
> wings.
>
The 'pro-wing' camp would argue that he did, more than once. Conrad cited
several examples in his treatise which could be argued to indicate flight. But
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.
>
> Occam's razor actually works *better* in fiction than in the real world.
>
It actually doesn't work at all in fiction. It doesn't even make sense to try
to apply the principle to a fictional construct.
grimgard
grimgard
Aris Katsaris wrote:
>
> > Actually, we're talking about two different arguments here. The first
> > argument, which I described as weak, is why the Balrog didn't simply fly
> > away when Gandalf cast him from the peak. The second argument, why the
> > Balrog didn't fly away when they first emerged on the peak, is a much
> > better one. But, in this particular argument, I feel that the 'no-wing'
> > camp has the burden of proof, since they're trying to demonstrate that
> > the *only* reason the Balrog didn't fly away is because he couldn't. If
> > I were a prosecutor, I don't think I would bother to take the case to
> > court if that was my only argument.
>
> I think the idea is that "no Balrog has even been seen flying, and atleast
> two perished by falling from great heights".
>
> I believe the burden on proof is on the "can-fly" camp. There's about as
> much evidence that Felarof could fly, as there is about the Balrog.
>
> There were wings on the feet of Felarof after all... :-)
>
> Aris Katsaris
Once again, I was referring to a single specific argument put forth by the
'no-wing' camp, with which you are attempting to revive the entire Balrog wing
debate. If you're not willing to restrict your cross-examination to the
material presented in the direct examination, then you may continue the debate
by yourself.
grimgard
grimgard
John Savard wrote:
> As I noted in another thread on this, it _is_ strange that the Balrog,
> with such an enormous wingspan, couldn't fly - or at least glide, or
> parachute with its wings - even to save its life.
>
Ever seen a prizefighter carried out of the ring?
grimgard
David Salo
<Spin...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Why do the anti-wingers always and invariably strip this phrase of its
> context? The complete line, of course, is
>
> "It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew
> itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to
> wall; but Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed
> small, and altogether alone: grey and bent, like a wizened tree before
> the onset of a storm."
>
> What's going on here? The sentence is almost palpable in its
> physicality: a great beast rising up, spreading its wings and dwarfing
> its enemy. The sole figure of speech is the simile at the end. The
> NoWingers are accusing Tolkien of being a clumsy writer who shifts
> from the literal to the metaphoric to the literal to the figurative,
> with no signal to the reader, within a single sentence. I challenge
> anyone to find another instance like that in any of Tolkien's
> writings. Tolkien is simply not the sort of bad writer that the forces
> of winglessness insist he is.
Well, the ProWingers are accusing Tolkien of being a clumsy writer who
introduces wings, sort of casually, without once having mentioned them
before or given us any evidence that a Balrog, whatever it is, is a winged
beastie!
Fact is, if Tolkien hadn't been a little bit clumsy in this passage,
there wouldn't be an argument about it 'cos we'd all have known what he was
saying. It's madness to suppose that some people get out of bed one day
and decide to say "hey, let me argue that Balrogs haven't got wings in
spite of clear evidence to the contrary!"
It's just pretty weird to have _1_ mention of wings in the whole
description of the B. and no other indication of them, despite pretty
detailed descriptions of them. When Tolkien describes Smaug, he's
certainly not shy about talking about the wings! While if you think that
the wings is a way of talking about the Balrog's cloak of shadow, you have:
1. "Something was coming up behind them... it was like a great shadow,
in the middle of which was a dark form..."
2. "...the light faded as if a cloud had bent over it."
3. "the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings"
4. "The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew."
5. "its wings were spread from wall to wall"
6. "from out of the shadow a red sword leaped flaming"
7. "its shadow plunged down and vanished."
No less than seven references to the same thing. Maybe more; possibly
the "streaming mane" referred to is another reference. (Hey! I think I've
invented something new in this debate; I can be remembered not only as a
"no-winger" but also as a "no-maner"!)
I should also note that the sentence is "its wings were spread from wall
to wall" and not "its wings spread from wall to wall"; that is, it
describes an existing state at the point of description. Nowhere are we
told about these wings opening up and spreading, in fact the only motion is
the Balrog stepping forward drawing "itself up to a great height".
The wings in #5. can only be spread if they had _already_ been spread;
and that seems to happen in #3, where "two vast wings" "reached out". But
the ProWingers generally admit that the wings in #3 _are_ metaphors for the
shadow, but that the #5 wings are different.
I think this is an incoherent view. I think a much better pro-wing
argument would be that _all_ of the references (1-7) to the shodow, the
cloud, the darkness are references to the wings, but that in the dimness of
the Second Hall it was not immediately possible to recognize them as wings.
That argument is much more respectable; it preserves the unity of the
description; and really doesn't necessitate any difference in the vision of
the Balrog, coming up, surrounded by a deep shadow which may be cast by two
vast wings, impalpable in the dimness.
David Salo
Aris Katsaris
>
> Aris Katsaris wrote:
> > You are reversing cause and effect. Gandalf was hot on his heels exactly
> > because
> > the Balrog was fleeing, and he was Gandalf's only hope of not getting
lost.
> >
>
> No, I'm merely stating a fact. The entire time that the Balrog fled
through the
> tunnels, Gandalf was close behind. Was the Balrog really trying to get
away?
> If so, he was remarkably unsuccessful, yet continued to try for an awfully
long
> time.
You point? That's what "fleeing" is. You have an extremely strong opponent
chasing you, you flee until you are cornered.
What??!? I mentioned all the possibilities you mentioned. Eliminate 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.
The no-wings theory doesn't need any such 'possibilities'.
> > > In order to use this argument
> > > effectively for the 'no-wing' camp, it is necessary to demonstrate the
> > > probability that the *only* reason that the Balrog did not fly away at
> > this
> > > point is because he didn't have wings and was therefore incapable of
> > flight.
> >
> > Well, if I say "why didn't Frodo and Sam just fly down that cliff?" I
hardly
> > think
> > it's necessary for me to prove that the *only* reason they did not fly
down
> > is
> > that they did not have wings. The burden of proof is supposed to be on
the
> > other side which says "they can fly, they simply didn't/couldn't at the
> > moment"
>
> If Tolkien ever described Frodo and Sam as having wings, then I certainly
think
> it would be necessary for you to prove that the *only* reason they did not
fly
> down is that they did not have wings.
Except that we are now going the other way. Let's say we are talking about
a creature which hasn't yet been described fully to us. We also know that it
didn't fly at the two cases where it would have a strong reason to do so if
it
could.
We have to evaluate this argument by *itself*. We know that there exist
other arguments, but this piece of evidence by itself support the no-wings,
no-flight side.
All the "mays" of the flying-side are just-that - possibilities which make
for
a weak counter-argument.
> > > > Occam's razor demands that we accept the simplest explanation.
Perhaps
> > > > he didn't fly because he *couldn't*. Not then, not ever.
> > >
> > > Yeah, everybody likes to cite Occam's razor like it really has some
> > signifigance
> > > in a work of fiction.
> >
> > Actually a work of fiction is one of the few places where I'd try to use
> > Occam's razor.
> > It's fiction that needs to make sense, it's fiction which is created by
an
> > author who
> > hopefully strives to make atleast some sense.
> >
>
> The only reason that Occam's razor has any validity in attempting to
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 than
natural cause-and-effects.
Why did Sting glow at the presence of enemies? Because the ancient elves
had the skill to make it so glow.
How does a computer work? Take four years in college and you'll know the
extreme basics.
Occam's razor works in an *extremely* limited fashion in nature. It works
marvels in fiction. The best mystery stories are those who in the end
provide
the amazingly simple explanation which fits all data, rather than the
amazingly
convoluted one.
> If you want to start applying the physics of the real world to this
> argument,then it's virtually impossible that a creature the size of a man
could
> fly at all unless its bones were hollow. Then again, it's even more
unlikely
> that a creature the size of a dragon could fly, let alone breathe fire.
Occam's razors has nothing to do with physics. It has to do with logic.
"Magic" is the simplest explanation for the powers of a Balrog, and in
a fictional universe where magic works, Occam's razor applies.
> > You can give a thousand reasons why the Balrog never ever used his
wings.
> > It'd
> > be more difficult to explain why *Tolkien* never had the Balrog use said
> > wings.
> >
>
> The 'pro-wing' camp would argue that he did, more than once. Conrad 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
an ambiguity in them.
> But
> 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 is
why
he didn't fly away instead of turning to fight. It's why did he didn't keep
on fleeing.
It does *not* refer to when Gandalf cast him down. After all, Ancalagon was
also
cast down.
> > Occam's razor actually works *better* in fiction than in the real world.
>
> It actually doesn't work at all in fiction. It doesn't even make sense to
try
> to apply the principle to a fictional construct.
Absolute nonsense. As I said, it works better in fiction. The real world
doesn't
need to make narrative sense.
Aris Katsaris
Aris Katsaris
>
>
> Aris Katsaris wrote:
>
> >
> > > Actually, we're talking about two different arguments here. The first
> > > argument, which I described as weak, is why the Balrog didn't simply
fly
> > > away when Gandalf cast him from the peak. The second argument, why
the
> > > Balrog didn't fly away when they first emerged on the peak, is a much
> > > better one. But, in this particular argument, I feel that the
'no-wing'
> > > camp has the burden of proof, since they're trying to demonstrate that
> > > the *only* reason the Balrog didn't fly away is because he couldn't.
If
> > > I were a prosecutor, I don't think I would bother to take the case to
> > > court if that was my only argument.
> >
> > I think the idea is that "no Balrog has even been seen flying, and
atleast
> > two perished by falling from great heights".
> >
> > I believe the burden on proof is on the "can-fly" camp. There's about as
> > much evidence that Felarof could fly, as there is about the Balrog.
> >
> > There were wings on the feet of Felarof after all... :-)
> >
> > Aris Katsaris
>
> Once again, I was referring to a single specific argument put forth by the
> 'no-wing' camp
Actually I'm generally doing the exact same thing - use only one specific
argument. People which try to say that the Balrog could have flown if he
wanted to, have to bring up the description of 'wings' from other passages.
Using only the specific argument and passage, we know only one single
fact: "The Balrog Didn't Fly Even Though He Would Have Had A Reason To"
That's ofcourse no absolute certainly that the Balrog didn't have wings, the
same way that if he *had* flown, it wouldn't be a certainty that he did have
wings. That old Penguin and Superman argument.
But it's evidence, and by itself it remains evidence.
Aris Katsaris
Conrad Dunkerson
> No, I'm merely stating a fact. The entire time that the Balrog
> fled through the tunnels, Gandalf was close behind. Was the Balrog
> really trying to get away? If so, he was remarkably unsuccessful,
> yet continued to try for an awfully long time.
It has been argued that the 'Endless Stair' might well not have had
any exits... as it is described as an 'unbroken stair from lowest
hall to highest peak' or somesuch - though why the Dwarves would
BUILD such a thing...
Anyway, if so then once the Balrog and Gandalf got on it the Balrog
would have no choice but to continue fleeing upwards or turn to face
Gandalf... which begs the question of why it'd take that route to
begin with unless it was panicked or looking to get to sunlight
because it needed that to reignite its flame (which also seems very
odd) or hoping that Gandalf hadn't done alot of exercise on the
stair master or what have you.
Still, Aris's point (as I understand it) is essentially correct...
the 'pro-flight' position must come up with numerous 'maybe'
explanations to explain why Balrogs did not fly under various
circumstances. I agree that the explanations for why it didn't fly
when cast down are stronger than those for why it didn't fly when
it reached the peak or when the bridge collapsed, but I think that
the overall idea is that setting aside the only two instances where
Balrogs MAY have flown ('flying from Thangorodrim' and 'with winged
speed') there is an awful lot of 'not flying' going on and the
explanations for why this is so sometimes have to get quite
convoluted.
> If Tolkien ever described Frodo and Sam as having wings, then I
> certainly think it would be necessary for you to prove that the
> *only* reason they did not fly down is that they did not have
> wings.
Except that the 'non-wings' argument here is that Tolkien did NOT
describe the Balrog as having wings... he described it as having a
'shadow' which temporarily looked like wings. At that the whole
wings != flight issue comes into play.
> The only reason that Occam's razor has any validity in attempting
> to describe the universe is because things in nature tend to be
> simple, following the path of least resistance.
I have to say that I've never been particularly fond of the razor
as I've always found that it depends on each person's personal view
of the 'most straightforward' answer... which is what they were
already arguing. Occam's razor always supports whoever is using it,
on any side... because to them that IS the simplest solution or they
wouldn't believe it in the first place;
"Oh yes, simple logic shows that the other view is correct but I
believe this one anyway." :)
> The 'pro-wing' camp would argue that he did, more than once.
> Conrad cited several examples in his treatise which could be argued
> to indicate flight.
Nope, just the two. There were two variants of the Hithlum passage
which might be pro-flight, but one of them may have been
Christopher's edited copy of the other. Besides that the only other
incident would be the Balrog 'flying from Thangorodrim' at the end
of the First Age.
> 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.
In that specific case it is entirely possible that the Balrog was
already dead... along with too wounded or too exhausted and thus
there are several plausible reasons why it might not have flown...
but I believe the essential point is that we must make assumptions of
unstated things here and everywhere else that Balrogs do not fly in
order to support the 'pro-flight' view. It is also possible that the
Balrog was relatively unharmed and merely died from the fall (though
this seems unlikely to me). That we can find an unstated assumption
to explain away the failure to fly in all cases means that there is
no conclusive answer on this issue... however, I think it is
difficult to say that the argument is EVER 'weak' in that it is
always countered with things that are themselves never stated by
Tolkien. The 'cast down' incident might be the 'weakest' of them in
the sense that in that case the unsupported assumptions against it
are the most plausible, but as an element in the chain of 'not-
flying' it provides a strong overall argument.
Conrad Dunkerson
news:g0pihtggpo55d5o24...@4ax.com...
> He usually signifies his authorial intent, whether using "tree-
> pillars" to make clear that he's using metaphor, or clearly
> announcing that Sam is seeing with vision that is Other.
I see...
So, since Tolkien did not have anyone state that the 'shadow was
plainly wings' as he did in the case where Gimli explained that the
'hole like a well' was "plainly a well" it is clear that he must not
have been clarifying his earlier vague description and thus the
Balrog did not have wings. Excellent... this 'signification of
authorial intent' is a wonderful tool for analysis. :)
> More rarely, as in an example cited in this thread concerning the
> winged feet of a steed, he relies on the reader's experience of the
> world: first, that horses do exist in the real world and do not
> have wings on their feet, and secondly, that winged-feet as a
> metaphor for speed is so well established in Western culture that
> it borders on cliche (since, at least, the Greeks invented Hermes
> three or four thousand years ago).
Hermes DID have wings on his feet... or rather, his sandals.
> Tolkien was not writing for illiterates who had never encountered
> the cliche of winged feet before.
Nor for those who had no experience with metaphors... and the 'wings'
COULD well be a metaphor - especially as we know Tolkien used a
simile and metaphor in exactly the same relation elsewhere.
> Why do the anti-wingers always and invariably strip this phrase of
> its context? The complete line, of course, is
> "It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew
> itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to
> wall; but Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed
> small, and altogether alone: grey and bent, like a wizened tree
> before the onset of a storm."
Why do you leave out the context of the 'shadow like wings'?
Certainly the first mention of 'wings' has SOME bearing on the
second? :)
> What's going on here? The sentence is almost palpable in its
> physicality: a great beast rising up, spreading its wings and
> dwarfing its enemy.
Funny, I'd say it was almost palpable in its symbolism... a powerful
being seeming to fill a hall far to vast for it to actually occupy,
the shadowy cloud about it seeming to hover over Gandalf like vast
wings.
> The sole figure of speech is the simile at the end.
So you assume. Others read it differently. You have failed to
even produce an argument against that differing view... just insisted
that it must be wrong.
> The NoWingers are accusing Tolkien of being a clumsy writer who
> shifts from the literal to the metaphoric to the literal to the
> figurative, with no signal to the reader, within a single sentence.
Not at all. They are saying that he elegantly used a simile and a
metaphor to describe the Balrog's 'shadow' in two different passages
and that the 'pro-wingers' would have us believe he was a clumsy
writer who described the Balrog with no mention of wings, told us
it had a shadow which looked like wings, and then inexplicably
suddenly stated that it has ACTUAL wings without clarifying that
these were different from the 'shadow wings' of the earlier simile.
> I challenge anyone to find another instance like that in any of
> Tolkien's writings.
"There the green floor ran on into the wood, and formed a wide space
like a hall, roofed by the boughs of trees. Their great trunks ran
like pillars down each side. In the middle there was a wood-fire
blazing, and upon the tree-pillars torches with lights of gold and
silver were burning steadily."
FotR, Three is Company
> Sure there is. Simply read what Tolkien wrote. Don't overthink it,
> and most certainly don't torture it into meaning something to match
> your own desires.
You're assuming again... I >prefer< the image of a winged Balrog.
However, my honest impression of a simple reading of what Tolkien
wrote is that the Balrog did not have wings. Learn to live with the
fact that what YOU think is clear is not the same for everyone else.
grimgard
Aris Katsaris wrote:
>
> > No, I'm merely stating a fact. The entire time that the Balrog fled
> through the
> > tunnels, Gandalf was close behind. Was the Balrog really trying to get
> away?
> > If so, he was remarkably unsuccessful, yet continued to try for an awfully
> long
> > time.
>
> You point? That's what "fleeing" is. You have an extremely strong opponent
> chasing you, you flee until you are cornered.
>
My point is obvious and terribly simple to understand. You're being
deliberately obtuse. That may be a valid debating tactic, which is why I
greatly prefer simple discussion to debate. Gandalf reports that the Balrog
fled. We have no idea whether he was genunely fleeing or whether he feigned to
flee.
By that account, I suppose that Tolkien's work is chock full of plot holes.
It's hardly essential to the plot of the story whether or not the Balrog had
wings. We are, in effect, nitpicking a point of such minor signifigance that
the author felt that his account was sufficient. But, as long as we're
nitpicking, we are constrained to remember the fact that the entirety of the
physical laws of Middle-earth depend upon what the author has written, and he
left out a great deal. Gandalf's entire account of his battle with the Balrog
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 'pursued' him. We do not know the Balrog's intent. Nor do we have any
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.
Absolutely not! What you're saying here, if I understand you correctly, is
that, for the sake of this particular argument, we have to disregard the fact
that Tolkien described the Balrog as having wings! That's the most ridiculous
bit of alleged reasoning I've ever heard in my entire life!
>
> All the "mays" of the flying-side are just-that - possibilities which make
> for
> a weak counter-argument.
>
On the contrary. All the 'mays' are the holes in your circumstantial case.
>
> > > > > Occam's razor demands that we accept the simplest explanation.
> Perhaps
> > > > > he didn't fly because he *couldn't*. Not then, not ever.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, everybody likes to cite Occam's razor like it really has some
> > > signifigance
> > > > in a work of fiction.
> > >
> > > Actually a work of fiction is one of the few places where I'd try to use
> > > Occam's razor.
> > > It's fiction that needs to make sense, it's fiction which is created by
> an
> > > author who
> > > hopefully strives to make atleast some sense.
> > >
> >
> > The only reason that Occam's razor has any validity in attempting to
> 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 than
> natural cause-and-effects.
>
Fictional cause-and-effects are extremely simple. They are what the author says
they are, nothing more and nothing less.
>
> Why did Sting glow at the presence of enemies? Because the ancient elves
> had the skill to make it so glow.
>
Sting glowed because Tolkien says it glowed.
>
> How does a computer work? Take four years in college and you'll know the
> extreme basics.
>
> Occam's razor works in an *extremely* limited fashion in nature. It works
> marvels in fiction. The best mystery stories are those who in the end
> provide
> the amazingly simple explanation which fits all data, rather than the
> amazingly
> convoluted one.
>
> > If you want to start applying the physics of the real world to this
> > argument,then it's virtually impossible that a creature the size of a man
> could
> > fly at all unless its bones were hollow. Then again, it's even more
> unlikely
> > that a creature the size of a dragon could fly, let alone breathe fire.
>
> Occam's razors has nothing to do with physics. It has to do with logic.
> "Magic" is the simplest explanation for the powers of a Balrog, and in
> a fictional universe where magic works, Occam's razor applies.
>
Occam's razor has everything to do with physics. It is an attempt to simplify
the explanation of things that exist in the physical world. If we understand
the nature of the physical world sufficiently, then we can begin to apply logic
to understand it further. This does not work in fiction. One need only examine
the inconsistencies of any work of fiction to see this. Suppose Tolkien had
said that Balrogs had wings but were incapable of flight? Then that's the way
it would be, despite the fact that it is extremely illogical in Tolkien's
universe.
>
> > > You can give a thousand reasons why the Balrog never ever used his
> wings.
> > > It'd
> > > be more difficult to explain why *Tolkien* never had the Balrog use said
> > > wings.
> > >
> >
> > The 'pro-wing' camp would argue that he did, more than once. Conrad 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
> an ambiguity in them.
>
Yes, "could be argues," and has been argued, very reasonably, too. Absence of
proof is not proof of absence.
>
> > But
> > 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 is
> why
> he didn't fly away instead of turning to fight. It's why did he didn't keep
> on fleeing.
>
You're a fraud, sir! I suggest you go back and re-read the original post to
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 peak,
although I personally considered it to be a weak argument. That was all I
said. You're the one who has attempted to extend the argument into an overall
'winged Balrog' debate.
>
> It does *not* refer to when Gandalf cast him down. After all, Ancalagon was
> also
> cast down.
>
My post, to which you responded, referred *specifically* to when Gandalf cast
him down. And that point was debated very hotly, especially when MM claimed
that the Balrog was already dead at that point.
>
> > > Occam's razor actually works *better* in fiction than in the real world.
> >
> > It actually doesn't work at all in fiction. It doesn't even make sense to
> try
> > to apply the principle to a fictional construct.
>
> Absolute nonsense. As I said, it works better in fiction. The real world
> doesn't
> need to make narrative sense.
>
Yes, you said it and you continue to repeat it. It's no more true now than it
was then.
grimgard
grimgard
Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
I agree with that as well, which is why I tend to side with the 'no-wing'
camp. As I keep repeating, my only contention in response to your volume
6 is that the argument that the Balrog cannot have wings because, if he
did, he would have flown away when Gandalf cast him from Zirak-zigil is a
weak one.
>
> > If Tolkien ever described Frodo and Sam as having wings, then I
> > certainly think it would be necessary for you to prove that the
> > *only* reason they did not fly down is that they did not have
> > wings.
>
> Except that the 'non-wings' argument here is that Tolkien did NOT
> describe the Balrog as having wings... he described it as having a
> 'shadow' which temporarily looked like wings. At that the whole
> wings != flight issue comes into play.
>
I disagree. Clearly, Tolkien did describe the Balrog as having wings.
The 'no-wing' contention is that the description was metaphorical. But
the fact is that he did write "it's wings were spread from wall to wall,"
which is sufficient to at least give the reader reason to consider the
possibility that the Balrog may have actually had real physical wings.
To compare that with the notion of Frodo or Sam having wings is patently
absurd.
>
> > The only reason that Occam's razor has any validity in attempting
> > to describe the universe is because things in nature tend to be
> > simple, following the path of least resistance.
>
> I have to say that I've never been particularly fond of the razor
> as I've always found that it depends on each person's personal view
> of the 'most straightforward' answer... which is what they were
> already arguing. Occam's razor always supports whoever is using it,
> on any side... because to them that IS the simplest solution or they
> wouldn't believe it in the first place;
>
> "Oh yes, simple logic shows that the other view is correct but I
> believe this one anyway." :)
>
I agree with you wholeheartedly on that point. The same applies to the
'most beatiful theory' in physics, which essentially states that, if more
than one conclusion is possible, the one which will prove to be correct
is the one that is the most pleasing esthetically. Of course, the theory
is always correct, once we have all the facts. >-/
>
> > The 'pro-wing' camp would argue that he did, more than once.
> > Conrad cited several examples in his treatise which could be argued
> > to indicate flight.
>
> Nope, just the two. There were two variants of the Hithlum passage
> which might be pro-flight, but one of them may have been
> Christopher's edited copy of the other. Besides that the only other
> incident would be the Balrog 'flying from Thangorodrim' at the end
> of the First Age.
>
Hmmm, I thought there were more, but I'll take your word for it.
Technically, of course, two is more than one, and that would, I believe,
qualify as several (*please* don't look it up, I really don't care if
it's right or not!). But 'two' would be a more accurate accounting
certainly. So, I (sort of) stand corrected.
>
> > 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.
>
> In that specific case it is entirely possible that the Balrog was
> already dead... along with too wounded or too exhausted and thus
> there are several plausible reasons why it might not have flown...
> but I believe the essential point is that we must make assumptions of
> unstated things here and everywhere else that Balrogs do not fly in
> order to support the 'pro-flight' view. It is also possible that the
> Balrog was relatively unharmed and merely died from the fall (though
> this seems unlikely to me). That we can find an unstated assumption
> to explain away the failure to fly in all cases means that there is
> no conclusive answer on this issue... however, I think it is
> difficult to say that the argument is EVER 'weak' in that it is
> always countered with things that are themselves never stated by
> Tolkien. The 'cast down' incident might be the 'weakest' of them in
> the sense that in that case the unsupported assumptions against it
> are the most plausible, but as an element in the chain of 'not-
> flying' it provides a strong overall argument.
I think I said essentially the same thing in another post regarding the
relative strength of the arguments. In the case of the particular 'cast
down' argument, I have to take exception to your description of the
assumptions against it as 'unsupported.' They are not explicitly stated,
I'll grant, but an exhausted Balrog would certainly seem to me to be much
more consistent with the events related than a hale and hearty Balrog.
grimgard
grimgard
Spiny2K+1 wrote:
> >but there is no conclusive means of
> >determining whether he was doing so in the Balrog scene or not.
>
> Sure there is. Simply read what Tolkien wrote. Don't overthink it, and
> most certainly don't torture it into meaning something to match your
> own desires.
Are your initials by any chance M.M.?
grimgard
Aris Katsaris
>
>
> Aris Katsaris wrote:
>
> > > No, I'm merely stating a fact. The entire time that the Balrog fled
> > through the
> > > tunnels, Gandalf was close behind. Was the Balrog really trying to
get
> > away?
> > > If so, he was remarkably unsuccessful, yet continued to try for an
awfully
> > long
> > > time.
> >
> > You point? That's what "fleeing" is. You have an extremely strong
opponent
> > chasing you, you flee until you are cornered.
>
> My point is obvious and terribly simple to understand. You're being
> deliberately obtuse. That may be a valid debating tactic, which is why I
> greatly prefer simple discussion to debate. Gandalf reports that the
Balrog
> fled. We have no idea whether he was genunely fleeing or whether he
feigned to
> flee.
We have absolutely no reason to doubt Gandalf's words since he's our POV
character
at that time.
Gandalf said that the Balrog fled. If you are to doubt this, you can just as
well doubt
that there was even a battle with the Balrog. Perhaps they sat down for tea
and
some cookies and then they shook hands and decided to go on their ways and
Gandalf
made up the whole story.
> > What??!? I mentioned all the possibilities you mentioned. Eliminate
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
holes.
> It's hardly essential to the plot of the story whether or not the Balrog
had
> wings. We are, in effect, nitpicking a point of such minor signifigance
that
> the author felt that his account was sufficient. But, as long as we're
> nitpicking, we are constrained to remember the fact that the entirety of
the
> physical laws of Middle-earth depend upon what the author has written, and
he
> left out a great deal.
Physical laws have nothing to do with the question.
> Gandalf's entire account of his battle with the Balrog
> 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.'
"till at last he fled into dark tunnels."
> We know that the Balrog went in front and that
> Gandalf 'pursued' him. We do not know the Balrog's intent.
Gandalf says his intent was fleeing.
> Nor do we have any
> 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.
Certainly, if one assumes that Gandalf's report was mistaken. If you take
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
> > 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,
is
> that, for the sake of this particular argument, we have to disregard the
fact
> that Tolkien described the Balrog as having wings! That's the most
ridiculous
> bit of alleged reasoning I've ever heard in my entire life!
IS IT?!? When trying to decide if a piece of evidence points to someone's
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 not, we can't use his wingedness or non-wingedness to determine the
passage's
meaning. It's the PASSAGE that must be evidence towards his
(non)-wingedness,
not vice-versa.
Or we are "arguing backwards".
> > All the "mays" of the flying-side are just-that - possibilities which
make
> > for
> > a weak counter-argument.
>
> On the contrary. All the 'mays' are the holes in your circumstantial
case.
My theory has nothing left to fill. He didn't have wings therefore he
couldn't fly.
Your theory has a big hole, and you have to fill it with one of those mays.
Those "mays" are irrelevant to the non-winged theory.
> > > The only reason that Occam's razor has any validity in attempting to
> > 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
than
> > natural cause-and-effects.
>
> Fictional cause-and-effects are extremely simple. They are what the
author says
> they are, nothing more and nothing less.
Except that the author doesn't always describe everything. In a story I
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
> > had the skill to make it so glow.
>
> Sting glowed because Tolkien says it glowed.
Who's being deliberately obtuse now? Sting glowed when there were Orcs
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
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
> > an ambiguity in them.
>
> Yes, "could be argues," and has been argued, very reasonably, too.
Absence of
> proof is not proof of absence.
Nobody said it was. Just indications thereof.
> > > But
> > > 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
is
> > why
> > he didn't fly away instead of turning to fight. It's why did he didn't
keep
> > on fleeing.
> >
>
> You're a fraud, sir!
You are extremely rude. Please apologise.
> I suggest you go back and re-read the original post to
> 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
peak,
You are either a liar or simply have a bad memory.
"If the Balrog was NOT too wounded to fly it certainly should have
either when it first reached the peak or, if it had decided to stop
fleeing and fight, then certainly when it was falling to its death..."
'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
was
> > also
> > cast down.
> >
>
> My post, to which you responded, referred *specifically* to when Gandalf
cast
> him down.
No, it didn't. It simply said "It doesn't really matter whether
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
> > doesn't
> > need to make narrative sense.
>
> Yes, you said it and you continue to repeat it. It's no more true now
than it
> was then.
And no less true simply because you've constantly failed to bring up any
example that so supports your opinion of the Razor....
Aris Katsaris
David Salo
wrote:
> Occam's razor has everything to do with physics. It is an attempt to simplify
> the explanation of things that exist in the physical world. If we understand
> the nature of the physical world sufficiently, then we can begin to apply
logic
> to understand it further.
Hm, no. William of Ockham wasn't a physicist but a metaphysician.
Although the "razor" principle may be used in science (with inconsistent
results; sometimes events turn out to be more complex than the "simplest
explanation"), it is more generally applicable (with the same inconsistent
results).
> This does not work in fiction. One need only examine
> the inconsistencies of any work of fiction to see this. Suppose Tolkien had
> said that Balrogs had wings but were incapable of flight? Then that's the way
> it would be, despite the fact that it is extremely illogical in Tolkien's
> universe.
But you're not actually discussing the question of whether or not
Balrogs have wings or whether or not they can fly; naturally, because
Balrogs don't exist and the question is per se meaningless. You're
discussing the question of whether J.R.R. Tolkien intended his fictional
Balrogs to be imagined with wings, or whether he intended them to be
imagined as flying. That's not a fictional question but a real-world
question about authorial intent. You are both attempting to deduce J.R.R.
Tolkien's state of mind when writing a passage by examing that passage,
which is a very reasonable thing to do. Certainly we can apply the "Razor"
in saying that such-and-such a theory is an excessively complex way of
relating Tolkien's presumed thought to the words on the printed page. As
always, though, there is a possibility that the more complex connection is
in fact the real one; the supposition is just that, over a large number of
cases, the simpler explanation has a greater chance of being right.
David Salo
Trevor Barrie
grimgard <grim...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>If Tolkien ever described Frodo and Sam as having wings, then I certainly
>think it would be necessary for you to prove that the *only* reason they
>did not fly down is that they did not have wings.
Of course, had Tolkien intended the reader to believe that Frodo and Sam
had wings, then I'm sure Tolkien himself would have given an explanation
as to why they didn't fly down.
Trevor Barrie
David Salo <ds...@usa.net> wrote:
> No less than seven references to the same thing. Maybe more; possibly
>the "streaming mane" referred to is another reference. (Hey! I think I've
>invented something new in this debate; I can be remembered not only as a
>"no-winger" but also as a "no-maner"!)
Err, the "streaming mane" caught fire. It's difficult to picture that
happening to a shadow.
grimgard
Aris Katsaris wrote:
It's not a question of doubting Gandalf's veracity. Gandalf had no knowledge of
the Balrog's intentions. You seem to be assuming that the use of the word
'fled' necessarily means that the Balrog was attempting to escape. And, as
Tolkien has pointed out in other cases, a character's conclusion cannot be
accepted with the same certainty as the author's statement.
Ah, so Gandalf is now psychic.
Sting glowed because Tolkien says it glowed. That's a fact. It stands to
reason that this is a result of Elven 'magic.' That's a conclusion. A
reasonable conclusion, but a conclusion nonetheless. I'm not debating the
point, I'm merely questioning its reliability as an example.
I have no idea who you're quoting here, but it certainly isn't me.
>
> '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
> was
> > > also
> > > cast down.
> > >
> >
> > My post, to which you responded, referred *specifically* to when Gandalf
> cast
> > him down.
>
> No, it didn't. It simply said "It doesn't really matter whether
> or not the Balrog was wounded in the least, he must certainly have been
> exhausted. Flight requires a great deal of energy."
>
That was not from the original post. It was from my response to Conrad's
response. If I knew how to find my original post, I would gladly repost it. If
you know how to find such things, please do so. It was a response to Conrad's
original post of Volume 6.
>
> Nothing about specifically when Gandalf cast him down.
>
> > > Absolute nonsense. As I said, it works better in fiction. The real world
> > > doesn't
> > > need to make narrative sense.
> >
> > Yes, you said it and you continue to repeat it. It's no more true now
> than it
> > was then.
>
> And no less true simply because you've constantly failed to bring up any
> example that so supports your opinion of the Razor....
>
On the contrary, I mentioned phlogiston. I also referred to the inconsistencies
which must inherently appear in a work of fiction, of which The Lord of the
Rings has its share. I have no intention of compiling a list of them,
especially since I have no doubt that you are as well aware of them as I am. At
any rate, this discussion has degenerated into a simple re-hashing the old
Balrog wings debate without even the benefit of any new information to make it
interesting, so I will leave it here.
grimgard
grimgard
David Salo wrote:
> But you're not actually discussing the question of whether or not
> Balrogs have wings or whether or not they can fly; naturally, because
> Balrogs don't exist and the question is per se meaningless. You're
> discussing the question of whether J.R.R. Tolkien intended his fictional
> Balrogs to be imagined with wings, or whether he intended them to be
> imagined as flying. That's not a fictional question but a real-world
> question about authorial intent. You are both attempting to deduce J.R.R.
> Tolkien's state of mind when writing a passage by examing that passage,
> which is a very reasonable thing to do. Certainly we can apply the "Razor"
> in saying that such-and-such a theory is an excessively complex way of
> relating Tolkien's presumed thought to the words on the printed page. As
> always, though, there is a possibility that the more complex connection is
> in fact the real one; the supposition is just that, over a large number of
> cases, the simpler explanation has a greater chance of being right.
>
> David Salo
I agree that it does in nature, but not in a case of human creative thought. As I
said before, the only reason that it tends to work in nature is because, in the real
world, things tend to take the path of least resistance. This is not at all true of
fictional constructs. If they did, then the path of least resistance would be not
to create any fictional constructs in the first place. At any rate, Aris wasn't
attempting to apply the principle to Tolkien's writing, but rather to the Balrog's
nature, at least, as I understood his argument.
grimgard
Aris Katsaris
>
>
> Aris Katsaris wrote:
>
> > Gandalf said that the Balrog fled. If you are to doubt this, you can
just as
> > well doubt
> > that there was even a battle with the Balrog. Perhaps they sat down for
tea
> > and
> > some cookies and then they shook hands and decided to go on their ways
and
> > Gandalf
> > made up the whole story.
> >
>
> It's not a question of doubting Gandalf's veracity. Gandalf had no
knowledge of
> the Balrog's intentions. You seem to be assuming that the use of the word
> 'fled' necessarily means that the Balrog was attempting to escape. And,
as
> Tolkien has pointed out in other cases, a character's conclusion cannot be
> accepted with the same certainty as the author's statement.
Still, we must have a reason before we doubt a character's undisputed word,
especially a character as wise as Gandalf. To need to doubt a character's
words adds a further complication which once again makes for a weaker
argument.
> > > I suggest you go back and re-read the original post to
> > > 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
> > peak,
> >
> > You are either a liar or simply have a bad memory.
> >
> > "If the Balrog was NOT too wounded to fly it certainly should have
> > either when it first reached the peak or, if it had decided to stop
> > fleeing and fight, then certainly when it was falling to its death..."
>
> I have no idea who you're quoting here, but it certainly isn't me.
It's Conrad. You answered to Conrad's argument. And you supposedly
responded to it in full, without specifying the last fall. Then I
responded to your post, that response was my first post to this
thread.
The entire post to which I responded:
------------------------------------------------
Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
> > Personally, I find it to be a very weak argument, but it was
> > brought up with surprising consistency during the Great Debates.
>
> Actually, it is a very strong argument... just easily countered.
> If the Balrog was NOT too wounded to fly it certainly should have
> either when it first reached the peak or, if it had decided to stop
> fleeing and fight, then certainly when it was falling to its death...
> only inability (either constant or brought on by wounds) can excuse
> not flying in that case.
Hmmm, either I don't seem to be communicating my points of view too well
or I'm having problems understanding others'. In my book, an argument
that is easily countered is a weak one. It doesn't really matter whether
or not the Balrog was wounded in the least, he must certainly have been
exhausted. Flight requires a great deal of energy.
grimgard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
> > '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
> > was
> > > > also
> > > > cast down.
> > >
> > > My post, to which you responded, referred *specifically* to when
Gandalf
> > cast
> > > him down.
> >
> > No, it didn't. It simply said "It doesn't really matter whether
> > or not the Balrog was wounded in the least, he must certainly have been
> > exhausted. Flight requires a great deal of energy."
>
> That was not from the original post. It was from my response to Conrad's
> response. If I knew how to find my original post, I would gladly repost
it. If
> you know how to find such things, please do so. It was a response to
Conrad's
> original post of Volume 6.
But I *never* responded to your original post. I only responded to your
answer to
the answer to your original post.
> > Nothing about specifically when Gandalf cast him down.
> >
> > > > Absolute nonsense. As I said, it works better in fiction. The real
world
> > > > doesn't
> > > > need to make narrative sense.
> > >
> > > Yes, you said it and you continue to repeat it. It's no more true now
> > than it
> > > was then.
> >
> > And no less true simply because you've constantly failed to bring up any
> > example that so supports your opinion of the Razor....
>
> On the contrary, I mentioned phlogiston.
Which actually *supported* my case, by showing that in the real world the
use of
Occam's Razor has important flaws. Unlike its use in fiction.
> I also referred to the inconsistencies
> which must inherently appear in a work of fiction, of which The Lord of
the
> Rings has its share. I have no intention of compiling a list of them,
> especially since I have no doubt that you are as well aware of them as I
am.
For several of those inconcistencies Occam's Razor suggests "Tolkien must
have simply missed them". In most of the cases, I think that Occam's Razor
is still correct.
Aris Katsaris
grimgard
Aris Katsaris wrote:
I hadn't intended to respond any further in this thread, but since you went to
the trouble to find this and post it, I'll address this one issue. As my
original response to Conrad concerned the point at which the Balrog was 'falling
to his death' (he may have already been dead, for all we know), that is the
point in time to which I was referring in the post which you have cited here. I
thought that was evident from my statement that the Balrog must have been
exhausted, referring to the very end of the battle. I expect it *was* evident
to anyone who followed the thread from my original post, but perhaps not, as I
seem to have confused Conrad as well. At any rate, that's the chance you take
when you join a conversation in the middle.
grimgard
Steuard Jensen
article <hD7S6.601$Ji.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
> "Steuard Jensen" <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> > The fact that it's "tree-pillars" rather than "pillars" used
> > later...
> Someone else said this so I guess such a counter will be presented,
> though personally I find it exceedingly weak.
I agree that the sense of the two passages is the same, but I could
easily see someone on the pro-wings side using that very quote to
argue that if Tolkien had meant for "wings" to refer to the shadow, he
would have said "shadow-wings". (In fact, someone may have already
done just that in this thread; I don't recall. My apologies for
plagarism if they did. :) )
> That he specified 'tree-pillars' doesn't change that they were not
> in fact tree-pillars
Unless one takes this passage as implicitly _defining_ the term
"tree-pillars" as a name for these objects. Anyway, enough said on
this point, I think.
> > (the "fruit tastes like an apple" example that I gave in the
> > current AFT Balrog thread could be good
> Possibly, but then I'd anticipate the claim that Tolkien would never
> write anything like that. :)
I was just rereading _The Restaurant at the End of the Universe_ (by
the late Douglas Adams), and to my embarrassment I read the following:
A few hundred yards past the clearing they suddenly came upon a
small pile of fruit lying in their path --- berries that looked
remarkably like raspberries and blackberries, and pulpy, green
skinned fruit that looked remarkably like pears.
...
Arthur took a bite from the thing which looked like a pear.
"It's a pear," he said.
I found it rather humorous to see something so remarkably similar to
my standard example of how we _don't_ use the word "like" show up in
something I was reading just a few days later. :)
Of course, part of the explanation here is that this is Douglas Adams,
and he often intentionally uses language in nonstandard ways to create
humor. Another part is that in context, Arthur here had every reason
to believe that the fruit in question couldn't possibly be an actual
pear no matter how much it looked like one, and the repeated use of
the word "like" here is intentionally emphasizing that point. The
fact that it _is_ a pear is meant to come as a shock. Thus, when you
think about what makes the passage work, it's clear that it relies
very much on the normal use of the word "like".
No, this doesn't actually have much to do with your summary, but it
seemed like a good place to share. :)
[Referring to the flawed "if there aren't wings then there isn't a
shadow" argument:]
> I'll ponder how that section can be clarified a bit... maybe what
> I'll do is 'formula-ize' all of these quotations to show how the
> elements interact. I've had some success with that in the past.
I know that "formula-izing" it would be very sensible to me, but you'd
want to make sure that you didn't scare away people without any real
experience with symbolic logic (sheesh, even the term sounds
pretentious). There are a few variant ways of arguing the point,
incidentally, though I think they're all fairly closely related. I'd
need to think about it longer to state the differences (and in the
process I'd probably end up proving to myself that the differences
weren't important :) ).
> > This is the one place where I'm uncertain on the value of the
> > sheer number of other sources used.
> Hmmm, yes I'd wondered if I wasn't overdoing it. Think I've got a
> solution though. I'll pick one particularly clear passage as
> representative and then just list off the existence of similar cases
> in the other works.
That sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. It does reduce the
impact somewhat, but it probably also helps people make it on to the
next section. :)
> > Personally, I might not quote _all_ of the intermediate forms...
> There aren't THAT many passages, and I think there is an impact to
> showing the many versions Tolkien wrote without flight imagery
> beyond simply stating that such exist.
You may have convinced me, actually. :)
> > The impact is greater the way that you've chosen to present it
> > here, but I tend to throw out the pre-LotR drafts entirely when
> > contemplating this issue.
> Heh, well we agree on the impact... but I've never been fond of the
> 'rejected material' argument as the way Tolkien >had< written it can
> certainly give us insights into what he might have meant in his
> later (often more poetic) versions. At that... the Annals of Aman
> variant which you suggested I snip out WAS post-LotR... and no
> wing/flight imagery.
You made some good points there. :) The fact that later versions tend
to get more poetic in their descriptive style without necessarily
changing the underlying concept is an important point; I wonder if
there's any way (or reason) to mention it explicitly. (Hmm... maybe
you already do; my mistake, if so.)
As for the post-LotR Annals of Aman quote, textual history and
relative chronology of the various drafts and stories is one of the
larger holes in my Tolkien knowledge (along with anything beyond
surface knowledge of the languages). Here's a thought for you that
might be really, really useful both here and in any other essay that
people write dealing with various drafts: along with the source
citation, include approximate dates of composition for each quote. I
know that I for one would find that extremely useful in discussions
about textual history, and it would make the pre-/post-LotR
distinction pretty clear. (It would be _very_ helpful to the many
people on the groups who know even _less_ about the various drafts
than I do, too.) Sound good? :)
> > Don't people also often say, "swifter than eagles", and that sort
> > of thing?
> I should clarify this section then... the relevant word is not
> 'swifter' but "RAN".
Ok, but I could then say, "Don't people also often say 'ran swifter
than eagles', and that sort of thing?" :) I know that "run like the
wind" is very common, anyway...
> ...[Balrogs] still ought to have been able to use flight to
> tremendous advantage if they had it. Tolkien was clearly aware of
> this as he described the devastating impact of the flying dragons.
Who says they didn't? They were certainly named frequently as some of
the most deadly and terrible enemies in the First Age, both face to
face and in battle (as far as I recall), and particularly if there
_were_ just seven of them they must have been incredible to be
remembered so clearly. Flight could certainly contribute to that.
> > And that it may have wanted to deal with Gandalf as its chief
> > priority in particular.
> I've never seen the basis for that one...
To be honest, I don't think I've ever worried too much about
_constructing_ a basis for it. My main point in mentioning it (when I
do) is just to illustrate that we really don't have any idea at all
what the Balrog was thinking, what it's motives were. Trying to guess
may or may not be at all productive (maybe it just had a deep and
heartfelt loathing for the color grey :) ).
It's possible that the Balrog didn't actually know or care about the
Ring (or that it thought Gandalf held it), and that it's main concern
was to get rid of the tresspassers, particularly the nasty powerful
Maia in the bunch. The rest of the Fellowship was clearly already on
the way out of the Mines, and the orcs could probably deal with them
anyway. That Maia, though... maybe he'd been spying out Moria in
order to take it for himself. He seemed to be the leader; maybe he'd
actually been there before. Maybe--Melko forbid--he had somehow
already learned the secret ways deep below the Mines! It couldn't do
to leave that nasty thing to its own devices, free to set up some
ambush where the Balrog might pass alone. Let the orcs deal with the
piddling Eruhini, or just let them run away: only Gandalf remained as
a threat.
I'm not saying that's the _right_ answer, but I think it's at least
vaguely plausible. As we don't have any understanding of the workings
of the Balrog's mind, we simply can't make real judgements about its
motivations and thought processes.
> > As I've said before, I'm quite interested in including your full
> > "Truth About Balrogs" series on my webpage as a sort of topical
> > "mini-FAQ" (along with my Bombadil essay), and perhaps linking to
> > both of those from the Tolkien Newsgroups FAQ.
> Please do.
I'll get to it when I have the chance. We'll see how work goes in the
next week or two. :) If you happen to come up with a revised version
in the meantime, that would be great. :)
Steuard Jensen
Conrad Dunkerson
news:sCSS6.283$I4.19110@uchinews...
> That sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. It does reduce the
> impact somewhat, but it probably also helps people make it on to
> the next section. :)
Yeah, but someone else wanted me to keep them in. Heh. So I think
I'm going to move them to the end and trim the quotations down
somewhat.
> You made some good points there. :) The fact that later versions
> tend to get more poetic in their descriptive style without
> necessarily changing the underlying concept is an important point;
> I wonder if there's any way (or reason) to mention it explicitly.
> (Hmm... maybe you already do; my mistake, if so.)
No, I don't think I mention it (though I'd have to re-read it myself
to be sure). It'd be difficult to just make the statement though
as it would require examples of meaning staying the same while the
words changed... and counter-examples could certainly be found as
well. The word "necessarily" in your response above is key... a
change in wording may OR may not indicate change in meaning. At
that, Tolkien also many times kept the same words, but completely
changed their intent. In general my point is that we can't just
label things 'rejected' as there is always a connection.
> As for the post-LotR Annals of Aman quote, textual history and
> relative chronology of the various drafts and stories is one of the
> larger holes in my Tolkien knowledge (along with anything beyond
> surface knowledge of the languages). Here's a thought for you that
> might be really, really useful both here and in any other essay
> that people write dealing with various drafts: along with the
> source citation, include approximate dates of composition for each
> quote.
Yes, I've thought of that in the past and agree it would be useful,
but it is often difficult to precisely date a passage and explaining
the possible range of dates and reference points for each in order to
place individual quotations would get messy. I've been thinking of
doing a 'reference guide' to give the known and approximate dates for
each 'block' of work in HoME. That might help both to give people a
better overall idea of the chronology of the texts and to look up
specific details when needed.
> Trying to guess may or may not be at all productive (maybe it just
> had a deep and heartfelt loathing for the color grey :) ).
Heh... drat, a possibility I completely overlooked in my summary.
I can see that the revision is going to have to be MUCH longer. :)
> I'll get to it when I have the chance. We'll see how work goes in
> the next week or two. :) If you happen to come up with a revised
> version in the meantime, that would be great. :)
I've revised Volume 1 based on commentary at the time and to correct
some minor errors, am 95% done revising 2 & 3, and have the new
appendix volume nearly completed. Volumes 4 & 5 should be easy to
revise as well, but six is going to take me a while as it is the
biggest and the least 'polished' to begin with. Still, I expect to
have them all done and re-posted before the anniversary of Volume 1
on June 26th.
Bingo Bracegirdle
Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote an awful lot
of erudite stuff about funny demons with whips (snipped):
What is all this obsession with Balrogs? I see some looney is even
writing a thesis on the damn things!
Is it all some sort of adolescent psycho-sexual wish-fulfilling fantasy
to compensate for a lack of normal healthy heterosexual activity in
young boys?
What would a good psychoanalyst (or should that be "psycho-analist"?)
make of it I wonder? Let us speculate:
"Pleeze lie down my boy und tell me ze first zing zat comes into your
mind venn I schpeek zeeze vordz und phrazes:
"RED TONGUE?"
"Moist"
"WINGS?"
"Knickers"
"FLAME?"
"Lick"
"IT FELT LARGER THAN IT LOOKED?"
"Penis"
"THONG?"
"Whip me"
"GANDALF THRUSTS THE BALROG?"
"Bottom"
"BLACK WEB?"
"Pussy"
"GOBLIN?"
"Suck"
"SPREAD FROM WALL TO WALL?"
"Thighs"
"WHIP?"
"With their thongs of flame the Balrogs smote the quivering flesh of the
young maiden's hot thighs"
"A von vord answer vill suffice, my boy!"
"Opps, er, um, sorry Docter, I seem to have made a mess in my pants."
"Don't vorry, my boy, all my patients do zat."
"Can you help me Docter?"
"Your case iz very serious", said the Docter, stroking his beard.
"Tell me, do you masturbate a lot?"
"Well, I er, um.."
"I thought so. Tell me, do you love your mother?"
"She left me in a cardboard box at a Tolkien convention when I was two.
I haven't seen her since."
"Und your farzer?"
"He left my mother when she started going to Tolkien conventions."
"Zat explains a lot"
"What Have I got, Docter, tell me?"
"Zat is easy, my boy. It is as clear a case of arrested sexual
development as I have come across."
"Is there a cure, Docter?"
"Only one."
"Yes?!"
"Get yourself a nice girlfriend and stop reading about Balrogs."
"Thank you Docter!"
"You are velcome - zat vill be two hundred und tventy dollars und sixty-
sthree cents zat you owe me. Please pay Ms Viplash on your way out."
--
Bingo Bracegirdle
Steuard Jensen
<4TXDzHAj...@spamfree.fsnet.co.uk>:
My interest in Balrogs, Tom Bombadil, magic swords, elf ears, and the
like comes from two different sources. First of all, I think that
Tolkien had a wonderful vision of Middle-earth, so there's some reason
to think that the closer my understanding is to his intent, the more
enjoyable the story will be. If by discussing his vision I can come
closer to sharing it, then the discussion is worthwhile in my mind.
(For example, I find my current vision of the Balrog as a demon of
scorching fire and groping shadow considerably more terrible than my
original image of it as a demon of scorching fire and flappy wings.)
The second reason is that there are so _few_ truly ambiguous or
seemingly contradictory passages in Tolkien's tales of Middle-earth
compared to their incredible level of detail (and remember that unlike
historical fiction, for example, the great detail of Middle-earth is
entirely from Tolkien's imagination). When we do find such things,
it's often the case that the "solutions" to the ambiguities and
contradictions are very tightly constrained by the rest of the
legendarium, which means that those solutions can end up giving us
information about seemingly unrelated questions about Middle-earth.
(A classic example of the kind of reasoning that we try to employ can
be found in Tolkien's essay "The Problem of ROS", found in _The
Peoples of Middle-earth_.) In other words, exploring these questions
in detail can sometimes reveal whole new facets of Middle-earth to
us... which is the biggest reason that I enjoy doing so.
Steuard Jensen
Bingo Bracegirdle
<sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> writes
>I find my current vision of the Balrog as a demon of
>scorching fire and groping shadow considerably more terrible than my
>original image of it as a demon of scorching fire and flappy wings.)
I see it as Edwin Muir :-)
>In other words, exploring these questions
>in detail can sometimes reveal whole new facets of Middle-earth to
>us... which is the biggest reason that I enjoy doing so.
Splendid, stirring stuff my lord Eru, oppps, I mean Mr Jensen :-)
But the big *BIG* problem with our terrifying fiend - the B*lr*g is that
there can never be a solution to this contradiction - if contradiction
it is.
Personally, and remember, I have a few years on you, having first read
the LoTR some 30 years ago, I believe the "contradiction" is no more nor
less than "poetic license".
For instance: "The fearsome hobbit-eating monster appeared before them,
and the smoke from it's nostrils writhed upwards like vicious, curling
tentacles. [Pause for dramatic effect to register and critics to sharpen
their pencils]. The monster made no sound. It's breath seemed to stop,
but the smoke grew. Suddenly it lunged forward with a mighty lunge and
its *TENTACLES* reached out for Steuard."
Well? Did it have tentacles or not?
And, more importantly does the answer really have any bearing on the
tale?
Best wishes,
--
Bingo Bracegirdle
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
>For instance: "The fearsome hobbit-eating monster appeared before them,
>and the smoke from it's nostrils writhed upwards like vicious, curling
>tentacles. [Pause for dramatic effect to register and critics to sharpen
>their pencils]. The monster made no sound. It's breath seemed to stop,
>but the smoke grew. Suddenly it lunged forward with a mighty lunge and
>its *TENTACLES* reached out for Steuard."
>
>Well? Did it have tentacles or not?
LOL
Öjevind
Bingo Bracegirdle
<ojevin...@swipnet.se> writes
>LOL
Well, did it? :-)
--
Bingo Bracegirdle
Steuard Jensen
> its *TENTACLES* reached out for Steuard."
> Well? Did it have tentacles or not?
Mmmmmph! Mmmmm-mm-mmm-mmmmmm-mm-mm, mmmmmmph! Mmmph!
Mmmm-mph Mmm-mph
Öjevind Lång
>In article <uf8W6.12058$vR1....@nntpserver.swip.net>, Öjevind Lång
><ojevin...@swipnet.se> writes
>>LOL
>Well, did it? :-)
It had tentacles of burning liquorice, and it crooned Lara's Theme.
Öjevind
David Salo
Up in the air, Junior Balrogs, up in the air, upside down!
Up in the air, Junior Balrogs, with your whip-thongs to the ground!
And when you hear the grand announcement, that the wings are made of shade,
You'll know that the Junior Balrogs have drunk their orangeade!
For it takes:
Five Wizards' Rods,
Four Palantíri,
Three Silmarils,
Two Númenórean Crowns, and
One Golden Ring!
DS
Bingo Bracegirdle
<ojevin...@swipnet.se> writes
>Bingo Bracegirdle hath written:
>
>>In article <uf8W6.12058$vR1....@nntpserver.swip.net>, Öjevind Lång
>><ojevin...@swipnet.se> writes
>>>LOL
>>Well, did it? :-)
>
>
>It had tentacles of burning liquorice, and it crooned Lara's Theme.
No, it was something far more menacing as the following true story from
the casebook of a well-known and respected physician will testify:
BAD DREAMS...
"Well what seems to be the trouble, Mrs Legless?"
"It's my little Davy, Dr Welby, he can't sleep at night."
"And why is that?"
"He has these awful nightmares"
"Oh dear, I'm sorry to hear that. What form do they take?"
Mrs Legless hitched up her skirt and pursed her lips. This was because
the patented extensions of a famous feminine hygiene product kept
snagging her knicker elastic. But that's beside the point.
"It always starts with a HUGE black shadow creeping stealthily across
David's bedroom wall."
"Does he sleep with the window open?"
"Yes - of course, otherwise the pixies couldn't get in."
"Pixies?"
"Yes, Doctor. They're the only things that keep the Orcs from escaping
from the wardrobe."
"All right. We'll let that pass. What happens then?
"When the pixies come?"
"NO! When your sees the shadow!"
"It grows. It gets really, really BIG."
"Have you talked to anyone about this?"
"No, it's not Rastus", "I'd know if he left our bed."
"Just a thought... Please continue.
"The shadow slowly advances towards the bed with it's huge outspread-"
"-Yes, yes?!"
"tentacles... or they could be-"
"-Yes!"
"Arms...or maybe-"
"Yes!" snapped the Doctor, flinging his stethoscope across the room.
"Legs?"
"And then?"
"Then it rips off the bedclothes and flings it's horrible body on top of
my little David and tries to suffocate him."
"And then?."
"He wakes up screaming."
"I see. Does the shadow have Rings?"
"Rings, Doctor Welby?"
"Yes, woman, RINGS! You know, long shadowy things that go flap flap
flap! Birds have them."
"Don't you mean 'Wings' Doctor?"
"No!"
"Well..er...maybe. Is it important?"
"Yes, of course it's important you cloth-eared bint!"
"Why. I thought it might be a-"
"Balrog? Nonsense woman. Balrogs don't exist. Even if they did, they
wouldn't have rings."
"Why not, Doctor?"
"Why not? WHY NOT! Because rings are worn on the finger, woman, and
Balrogs don't have any, that's bloody-well why not!"
"So what's been giving little Davy these bad dreams Doctor"
"The bloody curtains blowing in the wind you moronic old slapper!"
"Not... a - Balrog?"
"NO!!!"
"What should I do? Get rid of the curtains on Johnny's window?"
"No, get rid of the bloody Tolkien books and keep the window shut!"
"How can I ever thank you, Dr Welby?"
"Well you can throw that ridiculous feminine hygiene product away for
starters. The damn things are made by Doctor Faramir and he knows about
as much about a woman's needs as I do about Balrogs. Now bend over I
need to take your temperature!"
--
Bingo Bracegirdle
Tiffany Case
>
> "Well you can throw that ridiculous feminine hygiene product away for
> starters. The damn things are made by Doctor Faramir and he knows about
> as much about a woman's needs as I do about Balrogs. Now bend over I
> need to take your temperature!"
>
You are one sick, strange person, Bingo.
(Not that that's necessarily a bad thing.)
Bingo Bracegirdle
<perso...@yahoo.com> writes
>You are one sick, strange person, Bingo.
>
>(Not that that's necessarily a bad thing.)
You must never confuse the author with their fictional creations.
Or indeed, assume they have any existence at all! :-)
--
Bingo Bracegirdle