Where To Find The Balrog Essay
Michael Martinez
to Toy Vault's Middle-earth Toys Web site, which is where the Balrog essay I
wrote is posted. If anyone wants to read it, the main URL for Middle-earth Toys
is [http://www.middleearthtoys.com/]. The direct URL is
[http://www.middleearthtoys.com/figures/balrog/figures-balrog-history.htm].
Other essays that I've written for Toy Vault include Gandalf, Frodo, Gimli, and
Ugluk.
I've cross-posted this to both Tolkien groups even though the Balrog essay was
only mentioned in alt.fan.tolkien. I purposely avoided discussion of wings in
the essay to make it less controversial.
--
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\//
//\\ Mic...@xenite.org [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm]
// \\ENITE.org..........................................................
db
db
Michael Martinez wrote in message <7mj0a4$1q...@drn.newsguy.com>...
Shad
I never said that the Balrog essay was on the one
ring, but that the one ring has a piece about the
toy site and that's where the essay was.
And the essay is very good.
And - I want to make this very clear - am not
going to say anything controversial about Balrogs
and wings. It just seems a bit like an endorsement
of their winged version (but it isn't), even though you don't mention
wings.
Is there anyone on AFT who finds these balrog toys
the way that they imagined the balrog. I'll come
right out and say it, but the Bakshi Balrog is
better and *that* just made my girlfriend and
sister piss themselves laughing when they saw
that. That's how lame that was, and these toys are
worse.
Shad.
> >no, he doesn't mention wings but a picture
tells a thousand words.
>
> And your complaint would be?....
Michael Martinez wrote:
>
> Xoanon tells me there is no Balrog essay on TheOneRing.Net. I did find a link
> to Toy Vault's Middle-earth Toys Web site,
> is [http://www.middleearthtoys.com/].
Michael Martinez
<378DD7...@sbu.ac.uk> Shad did proclaim:
>
>Micheal et al,
>I never said that the Balrog essay was on the one
>ring, but that the one ring has a piece about the
>toy site and that's where the essay was.
>And the essay is very good.
I may have overreacted out of concern for possible copyright infringement. I
have had to deal with stolen content in the past, although there was no stolen
content in this situation.
>And - I want to make this very clear - am not
>going to say anything controversial about Balrogs
>and wings. It just seems a bit like an endorsement
>of their winged version (but it isn't), even though you don't mention
>wings.
I was contracted to write an essay about Balrogs. I wrote the essay at a time
when a Balrog controversy (perhaps the definitive one) was raging on the
Internet. Toy Vault told me the wings were removable, so people can have their
Balrogs however they wish, really.
>Is there anyone on AFT who finds these balrog toys
> the way that they imagined the balrog. I'll come
>right out and say it, but the Bakshi Balrog is
>better and *that* just made my girlfriend and
>sister piss themselves laughing when they saw
>that. That's how lame that was, and these toys are
>worse.
The Balrog design was one of the earliest. I don't believe Toy Vault solicited
any feedback from fans for that figurine.
C Porter Bassett
> I was contracted to write an essay about Balrogs. I wrote the essay at a time
> when a Balrog controversy (perhaps the definitive one) was raging on the
> Internet. Toy Vault told me the wings were removable, so people can have their
> Balrogs however they wish, really.
>
For those newbies of us out here, what were the major points on both sides
of the Great Balrog Controversy? I looked in the FAQ and lessFAQ, but was
not able to find anything. Is there any place that has a synopsis or
archives?
Michael Martinez
<Pine.GHP.4.10.990716...@beaver.et.byu.edu> C did proclaim:
The debates became so frequent and repetitive I compiled this FAQ and seem to be
reposting it about once a month. You can find it on Deja.Com, but here it is
once again.
THE BALROG WINGS FAQ
1) What were Balrogs?
Balrogs were demons. Prior to the writing of THE LORD OF THE RINGS,
Tolkien stated they were bred by Melko and that Gothmog their lord
was his son. During the years in which Tolkien wrote THE LORD OF
THE RINGS and related material (1938-54), Tolkien substantially
revised his conception of the Balrogs so that they became Maiar
corrupted by Melkor (Morgoth).
2) Did Balrogs have wings?
Balrogs in the 1916 story "The Fall of Gondolin" do not appear
to have had wings. The Balrog of Moria in THE LORD OF THE RINGS
did have wings. They stretched from wall to wall. See #3 below.
3) What about the word "like" in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING? Doesn't
it prove that the wings were just a metaphor?
The wings were seen by the members of the Fellowship. They were
hardly metaphorical (metaphors are used in narrative or to convey
ideas in character-to-character discussions). That Tolkien used
the word "like" in the clause "and the shadow about it reached out
like two vast wings" doesn't itself indicate the wings were not
there. This is only the first indication that there were indeed
wings. If "like" means there were no wings, then it means there
was no shadow to begin with, as the shadow is introduced with
"like": "What it was could not be seen: it was like a great
shadow...." And since the "shadow" is referred to, it must have
existed, just as since the wings were referred to they must have
existed.
4) Well, if the Balrog of Moria had wings, why didn't it fly through
the cavern to attack the Fellowship?
Apart from the fact that Tolkien didn't write it that way, if you
consider also that the wings, when fully extended, stretched from
wall to wall of the cavern, and that there were two rows of very
large "pillars" marching down the chamber toward the chasm where
the Balrog confronted the Company of the Ring, it probably seemed
unlikely to Tolkien that the Balrog COULD fly down the length of
the Cavern. We can only second-guess him in this matter, but that
seems to be the most reasonable conclusion.
5) So, why didn't it fly out of the chasm when Gandalf broke the bridge?
Didn't the chasm stretch from wall to wall also?
Yes, the chasm stretched all the way across the cavern, and could
only be crossed by the bridge which Gandalf destroyed. However,
as the story indicates, instead of trying to save itself, the
Balrog chose instead to grapple Gandalf and drag him down with it.
We later find out that Gandalf and the Balrog fought on the way
down, and that Gandalf was burned by being held so closely to
the Balrog. Neither Gandalf nor the Balrog died as a result of
their plunge into the chasm, so the Balrog appears not have been
afraid of dying in the chasm. It had already survived an attack
by Gandalf which would have killed any other creature (Man, Elf,
Hobbit, Dwarf, Orc, or Troll) involved in the Moria encounter.
6) So, why didn't the Balrog go after the Ring?
Nowhere in the story are we told that it even knew about or wanted
the Ring. We ARE told, however, that Gandalf dropped part of the
mountain on the Balrog when it was trying to pursue the Fellowship
after they fled the Chamber of Mazarbul. At the very least, it
may have decided it needed to get rid of Gandalf before it could
deal with the rest of the Fellowship. Or it may simply have been
very angry at having tons of rock dropped on it. The Balrog does
appear to have perceived Gandalf as the most powerful and dangerous
member of the Fellowship.
7) What were the wings made of?
We don't know. Quite probably "shadow-stuff", whatever it was which
the Balrogs used to cloak themselves in darkness. They probably
were not made of flesh and blood, or feathers, and need not have
been membraneous (skin stretched across appendages).
8) Did Balrogs fly?
Not in the 1916 story "The Fall of Gondolin". However, in a passage of
"Quenta Silmarillion" which was not completely included in the
published SILMARILLION, Tolkien wrote the following sentence:
"Swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum,
and they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire."
To date, all attempts to show that this passage can mean something
other than that the Balrogs were flying have been unsuccessful. The
sentence indicates the Balrogs were travelling very fast ("swiftly",
"winged speed"), but their arrival in Lammoth indicates they came
out of the sky (as a "storm of fire"). "Tempest" can mean something
other than "storm", most notably "tumult", but a tumult is a great
noise or confusion, and the sentence makes no sense if you substitute
"tumult" (or great noise) for "tempest".
Since the Balrogs were flying, "winged speed" may be more literal
than figurative. Hence, Tolkien's use of the phrase here is another
indication of the wings on the Balrogs.
9) Did the Balrogs use their wings to fly?
We don't know. As Balrogs were not made of flesh and blood, it's
quite reasonable to suggest the wings were used by them for flight.
But the wings may have just been there for "show", to intimidate
other creatures. The flying Balrogs, being Maiar, were not exactly
constrained to abide by all the laws of "physics" in Middle-earth
which the Men, Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, Orcs, and Trolls were.
Or, it may simply be that the Balrog bodies were insubstantial
enough that the wings could indeed provide sufficient lift for
them. The Balrog of Moria appears to be made of fire encased by
an envelope or veneer of something which served it as "skin". In
one passage, Tolkien mentions that flames come out of its nostrils,
and in another passage it leaps over a fire and takes no harm, while
in fact its "mane" is kindled by the leaping flames.
10) Why didn't Tolkien just write "the Balrogs were winged creatures" or
"the Balrogs flew across Hithlum"?
We can only second-guess him, but he did prefer to write longer, more
eloquent descriptions of characters and their actions to short
statements of fact. It's a stylistic issue.
11) Why does this issue get debated so often?
Perhaps a lot of people think they are right and want to argue about
it.
defau...@domain.com
> (This bit wasn't MM, it was the poster to whom he responded with his
> FAQ)
> >For those newbies of us out here, what were the major points on both
> sides
> >of the Great Balrog Controversy? I looked in the FAQ and lessFAQ,
> but was
> >not able to find anything. Is there any place that has a synopsis or
>
> >archives?
>
> The debates became so frequent and repetitive I compiled this FAQ and
> seem to be
> reposting it about once a month. You can find it on Deja.Com, but
> here it is
> once again.
Although it is certainly worth while to have a concise summary of one
side of the debate, it can't really be considered a response to the
poster's request for "the major points on both sides of the Great Balrog
Controversy".For that matter, Steuard Jensen's posting, while very
neutral, covers largely consensus conclusions (some of which I do not
agree with), rather than points. It would be interesting to have an
actual summary of the arguments for both sides.
There are a couple of bits of this FAQ I'd like to comment on, if I
may. I'll be covering the high points in multiple posts.
> If "like" means there were no wings, then it means there
> was no shadow to begin with, as the shadow is introduced with
> "like": "What it was could not be seen: it was like a great
> shadow...." And since the "shadow" is referred to, it must have
> existed, just as since the wings were referred to they must have
> existed.
I lurked for a couple of years before I started posting, so I've been
following the wings debate for some time. I've seen this argument of
MM's a few times before, but nobody ever seriously engaged it.
Generally it's been advanced at points in the discussion where people
aren't paying as much attention as they might to the substance each
other is advancing . . .
Actually, Michael, I don't think you're quite correct here. You're
right in saying the two phrases work the same way, but looking at the
grammar of it, I don't think that results in the meaning you draw. You
have to look at what is like what in each case. Quite simply, in "the
shadow about it reached out like two vast wings" we have "the
shadow"<-->"wings". So if there's no equivalence, it means not "there
are no wings" but "the shadow isn't wings". Similarly, in "it was like
a great shadow" we have "it"<-->"shadow". If there's no equivalence, it
means not "there is no shadow", but "it" was not a shadow. "it" refers
to the being who turns out to be a balrog. So if we say "the shadow is
not wings", all that implies about the other passage is "a balrog is not
a shadow". I don't have a problem with that. Balrogs are not shadows.
They may project darkness visible that can be seen through, and we call
that shadow for want of a better term although it's not the same as what
is on the other side of me from a light source. They themselves,
however, are demonic beings, and seem clearly to have some solidity. So
I agree, the "it like a shadow" construction is equivalent to the
"shadow like wings" construction, and both convey simile as you would
expect from such a construction, not equivalence.
More posts on other points probably to come. Good day, eh?
Rufus Polson
"Almighty Lord, why'd you take my hair?/ Are you building a carpet for
heaven's stairs?
To warm the feet of the chosen souls?/ But in the meantime, my head's
getting cold!"
--Arrogant Worms, 'Losing hair under God'
Michael Martinez
<378FE312...@domain.com> defau...@domain.com did proclaim:
>Although it is certainly worth while to have a concise summary of one
>side of the debate, it can't really be considered a response to the
>Controversy".
The questions pretty much represent the "other side" of the debate, and the FAQ
is as impartial as what Steuard Jensen posted (take my name from it and you'll
see we say pretty much the same thing).
>There are a couple of bits of this FAQ I'd like to comment on, if I
>may. I'll be covering the high points in multiple posts.
Absolutely. As I expect to be posting it again and again in the coming decades,
I am open to comment.
>> If "like" means there were no wings, then it means there
>> was no shadow to begin with, as the shadow is introduced with
>> "like": "What it was could not be seen: it was like a great
>> shadow...." And since the "shadow" is referred to, it must have
>> existed, just as since the wings were referred to they must have
>> existed.
>
>I lurked for a couple of years before I started posting, so I've been
>following the wings debate for some time. I've seen this argument of
>MM's a few times before, but nobody ever seriously engaged it.
>Generally it's been advanced at points in the discussion where people
>aren't paying as much attention as they might to the substance each
>other is advancing . . .
You may or may not recall the "Simile and Metaphor" threads, then. :)
> Actually, Michael, I don't think you're quite correct here. You're
>right in saying the two phrases work the same way, but looking at the
>grammar of it, I don't think that results in the meaning you draw. You
>have to look at what is like what in each case.
[I'm inserting some breaks because your paragraph is quite long]
>Quite simply, in "the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings"
>we have "the shadow"<-->"wings". So if there's no equivalence, it
>means not "there are no wings" but "the shadow isn't wings".
First of all, you're deconstructing the sentence improperly. "like two vast
wings" is acting as an adverbial phrase. It is modifying the verbal phrase
"reached out":
Subject verbal phrase adverbial phrase
Shadow reached out like two vast wings
The phrase therefore describes the action, not the subject.
>Similarly, in "it was like a great shadow" we have "it"<-->"shadow". If
>there's no equivalence, it means not "there is no shadow", but "it" was
>not a shadow. "it" refers to the being who turns out to be a balrog.
Here the sentence is constructed differently from above:
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 a terror seemed to be in it and to go before it.
Well, this is a pretty complex sentence with clauses all over the place. The
"shadow clause", as it were, is simple enough:
subject verb prep. phrase
it was like a great shadow
In this case "like" is connecting the predicate "a great shadow" to "was". In
both sentences "like" is associated with the verb, not the noun in the subject
of the sentence.
Hence, if "like" means there were no wings, "like" means there was no shadow.
In reality the logic simply doesn't work. That Tolkien used a simile to provide
a transition from vagueness to clarity doesn't mean that neither the wings nor
the shadow existed. It simply means Tolkien was using a literary device to
create a transitional perception for the reader.
>So if we say "the shadow is not wings", all that implies about the other
>passage is "a balrog is not a shadow". I don't have a problem with that.
>Balrogs are not shadows.
Actually, they ARE creatures of shadow -- literally, in the metaphorical sense
that Tolkien uses "shadow". What Tolkien was doing was vaguely (and serially)
introducing the reader to the Balrog, revealing only a little information
bit-by-bit, subtly altering the reader's perception of the creature each time
it's encountered.
First Gandalf says something large is in the cave beyond the Chamber of
Mazarbul, possibly a great cave troll.
Then Gandalf says that something powerful detected him and his spell and began
to counteract it, so he used a Word of Command to drop part of the mountain on
whatever it was.
By this point the reader knows that something physically large and "magically"
powerful has come upon the Fellowship, but we don't know what it is.
Next we see the thing which is "like a great shadow, in the middle of which was
a dark form". So the shadow is not really the Balrog itself, it's just an
emanation or exterior of the Balrog. The "dark form" is the core of the
Balrog's body, but the "shadow" makes it difficult to see what the thing is.
Next we see the creature leap across a flaming fissure, and fire swirls up
around it. A part of the creature's "body" catches flame and it takes no harm.
It now reveals a flaming sword-like weapon in one hand and a many-thonged whip
in the other hand.
At this point Legolas identifies the creature as a Balrog, and presumably what
led him to the right conclusion were the shadowy appearance, the sense of terror
that oozed from it, the flaming mane, the sword, and the whip. All these are
classic Balrog traits to someone who has heard about Balrogs before (the reader
will not have heard about a Balrog before this point).
Now after an intervening horn blast from Boromir the Balrog arrives at the
bridge and what has previously been referred to as the "shadow" extends outward
from the Balrog "like two vast wings". So the reader is presented with the
shape of wings. From this point onward, it becomes a purely semantic argument.
Tolkien henceforth refers to the wings as wings and we know from the text that
whatever they are they are made of "shadow stuff".
To be called wings they need only be wing shaped. The description is literal
and Tolkien assures the reader of that by saying the "wings" (whatever they are
made of) stretch from wall to wall.
The point is that it really makes no sense to argue that there weren't any
wings. We can reasonably argue there were no batlike, membraneous wings. For
one thing, bat wings would extend like arms, not independently of them. For
another, membraneous wings would not have the insubstantial appearance of these
wings which are apparently made of "shadow stuff". Call them "magical wings",
"shadow wings", "emanation wings", or whatever, they are still WINGS.
What is Tolkien referring to when he uses the word "shadow" in these
descriptions of the Balrog? True shadow is simply an area where light is
absent, surrounded by an area where light is present (or where the intensities
of light differ). If the Balrog was literally excluding light from passing
through a physical region around itself, then this would in effect be a
three-dimensional shadow (perceivable in itself, rather than as a negative
projection on a background, as normal shadows are). Tolkien says (in "Of the
Coming of the Elves and the Captivity of Melkor" in THE SILMARILLION) that the
Balrogs were "cloaked in shadow". This is about as accurate an interpretation
as I can render of that phrase, based on the description provided in THE
FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING.
Steuard Jensen
> For those newbies of us out here, what were the major points on both sides
> of the Great Balrog Controversy? I looked in the FAQ and lessFAQ, but was
> not able to find anything. Is there any place that has a synopsis or
> archives?
For archives, you can look at Deja.com, though you'll be rather
swamped. A synopsis might be a good idea, or some sort of FAQ by a
reasonably impartial party.
Interestingly enough, as far as I understood it, the last War of the
Wing ended with most of the participants in agreement on the
following:
1) The Balrog in Moria had "wings" of some sort, which the company saw
stretch from wall to wall.
2) Those "wings" were probably not made of flesh and blood, but rather
of some sort of "shadow-stuff". (Thus, when the Balrog is in front
of the pit of fire, the fire seems dimmed, not just plain blocked.)
It says worlds about our ability to discuss things productively (or
lack thereof) that we spent weeks arguing between two different ways
of saying these same things without noticing that we agreed with each
other. The contentious point here, as far as I can tell, pretty much
depended on each person's use of the word "wing": some of us thought
saying "wings" in this context implied flesh and blood wings (or at
least implied something more substantial than 2) above), while others
did not assign it that meaning.
As there is pretty much no clear textual evidence either way, I don't
know if we ever even really discussed whether or not the Balrog's
"wings" were constrained to have a winglike shape, or if the Balrog
could change that. (Considering their likely composition of
"shadow-stuff", it seems at least possible that the Balrog could
exercise some degree of control over their shape, but again, I don't
know of any evidence for or against.)
The other heated aspect of the debate was whether or not Balrogs could
fly. Again, at the end of the last round of this debate, I believe
that we agreed on the following:
3) The passage with the Balrog in Moria does not provide convincing
evidence one way or the other about Balrogs ability to fly (the
cavern/chasm may have been too small for the use of such big wings,
and the Balrog may have just had it in for Gandalf after he dropped
a roof on him anyway).
4) Even if Balrogs could fly, we do not know whether or not they used
their "wings" to do so (they're Maiar, and for all we know could
fly like Superman, wings or no).
You may have noticed that 4) is a much weaker and more tentative sort
of statement than 1) or 2). We did _not_ agree on whether or not
Balrogs could fly, nor was there general agreement on whether or not
the texts were clear on the matter.
The only known source (apart from the presence of shadowy "wings")
that indicates that Balrogs could fly is a passage from _Morgoth's
Ring_ (HoMe 10), in one of Tolkien's latest renditions of the scene in
which the Balrogs rescue Morgoth from Ungoliant after she has slain
the Two Trees. (Remember, appropriate parts of HoMe are "more
canonical" than _The Silmarillion_, so they get used most in scholarly
discussions.)
5) We all agree that this passage contains strong, repeated imagery of
flight, and that Tolkien intentionally created that image. (At
least, I _think_ we all agree on that; amazingly coincidence of
word choice, otherwise, especially for someone as focused on
language as Tolkien.)
However... Some of us believe that the passage does not unambiguously
indicate that the Balrogs actually flew. Those who hold this opinion
say that it is possible to see the imagery of flight as an indication
of great speed (similar to the use of "flew" in the comment "I picked
up that book, and I just flew through it"). Others believe that the
passage does unambiguously indicates that the Balrogs literally flew.
Those with this view say that there is no way to capture the full
meaning of the passage without using words that indicate flight.
(Please correct me if I have completely misstated this point and I'll
substitute a suggested alternate wording the next time I post
something like this.)
Strangely enough, there are intelligent, thoughtful people on both
sides of this issue who are convinced that theirs is the only
reasonable way to read the passage. I can't really decry this
situation, as I am one of those people: I firmly believe that the
passage is not sufficiently clear to decide between imagery and
literal flight. However, there are people for whom I have great
respect who believe just as firmly that the passage clearly describes
flying Balrogs. At this point, unless another text surfaces that
sheds light on the matter, I don't think that any of us will convince
those on the other side to change their minds.
That's where we are now. I think that if we all keep our heads, we
can sidestep the issue of Balrogs' ability to fly (a single text that
the author had not cast into its final form is shaky evidence for any
conclusion, after all) and focus on the aspects of Balrog "wings" that
we do agree on. I honestly doubt that another War of the Wing could
erupt at this point, now that we have recognized how broad that
agreement is. Still, the subject brings terror to the hearts of many,
so it's worth treating it gently.
I hope these comments have at least given you a feel for the Debate
that Was, an appreciation for the Questions that Are, and an
understanding of the Uncertainties that will Always Be.
Steuard Jensen
Steuard Jensen
> For that matter, Steuard Jensen's posting, while very neutral,
> covers largely consensus conclusions (some of which I do not agree
> with), rather than points.
I'm interested to know which "consensus conclusions" that I listed you
disagree with (or for that matter, those that anyone else disagrees
with). I'll be happy to un-label them as "generally agreed upon"
if that turns out to be false.
> It would be interesting to have an actual summary of the arguments
> for both sides.
I would have done so, but as indicated in my post, I ended up deciding
after the last incarnation of this thread that behind most of the
"arguments" that I had seen for either side was an unsuspected
consensus, which I summarized at the beginning of my previous post to
this thread. Thus, it seemed more productive (and less likely to
spark an unnecessary flame-debate) to simply state the consensus and
merely outline the debate itself. Those who want more detail are
welcome to look it up on deja.com.
Yes, I phrased those conclusions in the most neutral language I could
in my summary; I was trying my hardest to be impartial, and happily it
sounds like I was mostly successful. On the other hand, I naturally
prefer my thought process leading to those conclusions (and my use of
language, on which so much of the debate seemed to hinge) to the
thought process and labels of "the other side". To be honest, though,
I don't think it's very productive to argue about whose method of
reaching the same conclusion is best: such debates always end up
sounding like "I think better than you do".
> > If "like" means there were no wings, then it means there
> > was no shadow to begin with, as the shadow is introduced with
> > "like":
> I lurked for a couple of years before I started posting, so I've been
> following the wings debate for some time. I've seen this argument of
> MM's a few times before, but nobody ever seriously engaged it.
I have in the past, as have quite a few others; this very point was
the source of the "Simile vs. Metaphor" subject line that labeled many
Balrog Wing debates in the past. (Again, searching on deja.com could
be productive for details.)
I for one am hesitant to go down this road again when I know that
Michael and I agree at least reasonably closely on the "facts" of the
situation. I generally enjoy a good debate, but this one seems too
volatile to unleash just so we can argue over how broadly one should
apply the word "wings".
> Generally it's been advanced at points in the discussion where people
> aren't paying as much attention as they might to the substance each
> other is advancing . . .
[snip]
> More posts on other points probably to come. Good day, eh?
> Rufus Polson
If you are determined to address the points in Michael's FAQ that
bother you, then I have this advice for you in light of your previous
comment (right above the snip above): only debate one point at a
time. If you try to debate everything at once (even if you put them
in separate posts at first), there is too good a chance that once
again the substance will get lost in the shuffle. Wait until we
either reach a conclusion or an impasse on each point before starting
the next, and maybe allow a couple days' breathing room in between,
just to let any strained tempers relax. If we can go over some of the
more contentious points in a "controlled environment", I think it
would be good for all of us.
Steuard Jensen
Steuard Jensen
this topic. It's nice to see so clearly that we're on the same
wavelength from the start this time around.
Considering this pleasant air of agreement, I am curious to know what
everyone thinks about the one topic that I mentioned we hadn't really
discussed at length last time: how much control did the Balrog have
over the shape of its "wings"? That is, could it reshape the
shadow-stuff of which they were made to be a sphere about its body, or
to engulf an enemy? (I don't know what the shadow-stuff is, but boy,
I wouldn't want to be stuck in it!)
Of course, if its ability to reshape the shadow-stuff was significant,
then it starts to seem strange to refer to it as "wings", at least
when it isn't specifically in that form. (I think that's where much
of my resistance to the term comes from, by the way, though I've come
to accept it when the wing-shape is present.)
Steuard Jensen
Mike Dickinson
wrote:
>Next we see the thing which is "like a great shadow, in the middle of which was
>a dark form". So the shadow is not really the Balrog itself, it's just an
>emanation or exterior of the Balrog. The "dark form" is the core of the
>Balrog's body, but the "shadow" makes it difficult to see what the thing is.
I've been dubious of the whole Balrog Wing Thing, but I think you've
finally convinced me. I was totally against the idea of the Balrog
having wings and these were what enabled it to fly, thus it couldn't
fly in the chamber with the pillars restricting its movement.
The idea of the wings not being in any way physical is what clinched
it for me. They couldn't be the 'foldaway' wings of most animals,
because that would restrict its movement.
I think the wings in the passage about the Balrog in Moria were like
extensions of its *presence*, not wings that would be used for flying.
(IMO, it's not wings that enable the Balrogs to fly, but rather their
inherent magic - although to make something that size fly, you would
need physical wings that would stretch across the chamber.)
>To be called wings they need only be wing shaped. The description is literal
>and Tolkien assures the reader of that by saying the "wings" (whatever they are
>made of) stretch from wall to wall.
When I first read this I thought that it was a mental image projected
into the minds of the Fellowship of the awe and terror that the Balrog
instils in them. It's the way there's this huge form, physical or
supernatural, somehow surrounding the creature.
I'm in two minds about the argument, and I think it is completely
possible to have both opinions. I think that both the Balrog did have
wings made of 'shadow stuff' and also it had this mental projection of
itself in the others' minds.
>Tolkien says (in "Of theComing of the Elves and the Captivity of Melkor" in
>THE SILMARILLION) that the Balrogs were "cloaked in shadow". This is about
>as accurate an interpretation as I can render of that phrase, based on the
>description provided in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING.
In effect, this would be the same sort of image that you'd see if
someone wearing the One Ring walked through say, a cloud of smoke.
There'd be this clear transparent patch; not darkly transparent like
the image of the Balrog in the fire, but completely transparent.
--
Mike Dickinson
Mike Dickinson
(Steuard Jensen) wrote:
>Considering this pleasant air of agreement, I am curious to know what
>everyone thinks about the one topic that I mentioned we hadn't really
>discussed at length last time: how much control did the Balrog have
>over the shape of its "wings"? That is, could it reshape the
>shadow-stuff of which they were made to be a sphere about its body, or
>to engulf an enemy? (I don't know what the shadow-stuff is, but boy,
>I wouldn't want to be stuck in it!)
Probably not a sphere, IMO, because I've got this conception of the
creature that the shadow-stuff is just as opaque to the Balrog as our
bodies are to us. I don't really know how I formed this opinion, but
it probably has something to do with the idea of the Balrog being made
of shadow-stuff. This substance is not part of a physical plain of
existence, being made of super- (or sub-) natural material.
The Balrog's image is an extension into a different plain of existence
of the magical form that is made of magic. The creature is like a
three-dimensional "shadow" onto the "physical plain" from an object on
the "magical plain".
In the chamber, the Fellowship saw a shadow in their world. By my
idea (which I don't think anybody else will like, because even to me
it's dubious, but I somehow think it makes sense) the Balrog would see
itself in it's own plain of existence as opaque, but all of the
objects on the physical plain would seem to it to be "shadows" just
like it was to them.
Of course, Gandalf was also a creature of magic, and therefore would
have a much stronger projection onto the magical plain of the Balrog,
so it would find him much more of a threat than all of the others.
>Of course, if its ability to reshape the shadow-stuff was significant,
>then it starts to seem strange to refer to it as "wings", at least
>when it isn't specifically in that form. (I think that's where much
>of my resistance to the term comes from, by the way, though I've come
>to accept it when the wing-shape is present.)
I think that its default shape is the set of "wings", be they for
flying or not. It probably could reshape the shadow-stuff, just like
extra limbs, but it was made of a different sort of magic from the
main dark core of the creature.
--
Mike Dickinson
defau...@domain.com
> On the day of Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:57:39 -0700 in article
> <378FE312...@domain.com> defau...@domain.com did proclaim:
> >Although it is certainly worth while to have a concise summary of one
>
> >side of the debate, it can't really be considered a response to the
> >poster's request for "the major points on both sides of the Great
> Balrog
> >Controversy".
>
> The questions pretty much represent the "other side" of the debate,
> and the FAQ
> is as impartial as what Steuard Jensen posted (take my name from it
> and you'll
> see we say pretty much the same thing).
>
Certainly on the Hithlum passage I don't think you say the same thing.
On the LOTR passage--well, Steuard largely mentions a consensus on
results of how the whatever-it-was-we-are-talking-about would appear,
but doesn't take a position one way or the other on whether people who
consider the passage to involve simile/metaphor are misguided.
Essentially, the rather minimal claim made is that whether there are
wings in some essential sense or not, the result will look about the
same. You, on the other hand, by clearly rejecting any notion of
language being used in figurative ways, seem in the end to be stating
that the 'wings' are 'wings' in some real sense, however shadowy that
real sense may be. To me, Steuard's synthesis doesn't really solve the
problem in the sense that, if you could hold down the balrog and force
it to answer the question "do you have wings?" that synthesis doesn't
give us an answer. I have the feeling that your position more or less
implies that the balrog would say "yes.", although do correct me if I'm
wrong.
> >There are a couple of bits of this FAQ I'd like to comment on, if I
> >may. I'll be covering the high points in multiple posts.
>
> Absolutely. As I expect to be posting it again and again in the
> coming decades,
> I am open to comment.
>
> >> If "like" means there were no wings, then it means there
> >> was no shadow to begin with, as the shadow is introduced with
> >> "like": "What it was could not be seen: it was like a great
> >> shadow...." And since the "shadow" is referred to, it must
> have
> >> existed, just as since the wings were referred to they must
> have
> >> existed.
> >
> >I lurked for a couple of years before I started posting, so I've been
>
> >following the wings debate for some time. I've seen this argument of
>
> >MM's a few times before, but nobody ever seriously engaged it.
> >Generally it's been advanced at points in the discussion where people
>
> >aren't paying as much attention as they might to the substance each
> >other is advancing . . .
>
> You may or may not recall the "Simile and Metaphor" threads, then. :)
Yes. I have come to the conclusion that the term "Metaphor" is nigh
impossible to define. For purposes of any given discussion, though, you
don't need to know what it means, you just need to know what the person
who uses it means by it. Then you can figure out whether the resulting
statement is true.
> > Actually, Michael, I don't think you're quite correct here.
> You're
> >right in saying the two phrases work the same way, but looking at the
>
> >grammar of it, I don't think that results in the meaning you draw.
> You
> >have to look at what is like what in each case.
>
> [I'm inserting some breaks because your paragraph is quite long]
>
> >Quite simply, in "the shadow about it reached out like two vast
> wings"
> >we have "the shadow"<-->"wings". So if there's no equivalence, it
> >means not "there are no wings" but "the shadow isn't wings".
>
> First of all, you're deconstructing the sentence improperly. "like
> two vast
> wings" is acting as an adverbial phrase. It is modifying the verbal
> phrase
> "reached out":
>
> Subject verbal phrase adverbial phrase
> Shadow reached out like two vast wings
>
> The phrase therefore describes the action, not the subject.
>
You have a point, although that also reduces any parallel between the
two sentences you compare. For that matter, I think there's a gray area
of language use here--since I don't know of any commonly accepted
consensus about a special way that wings tend to reach out, I'd say
there's an implication that the shadow can't be reaching out like wings
unless it is in some way like wings. Nonetheless, my basic point here
is that I am not saying, and I can't recall anybody arguing, that this
sentence contains a claim or implication "there are no wings", only "the
shadow is not wings". In normal usage, I believe, it is fairly clear
that a comparison of this sort implies that there is not an identity. I
would be surprised to read a sentence in which (a) did (b) like (c) and
then find out it was because (a) *was* (c).
(snip)
> Hence, if "like" means there were no wings, "like" means there was no
> shadow.
This is the core. "like" doesn't mean "there were no wings", it only
means "the shadow was not wings." Therefore, "like" doesn't have to
mean, "there was no shadow". Even if we take "it" as the aura
surrounding the balrog, while we have no better term for it, it was not
a shadow in any normal dictionary sense of the word (I just checked in a
Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged to be sure--not the OED, but it's got
a goodly paragraph). When I stand in the sun, that thing on the ground
beside me is a shadow; the darkness visible around the balrog was not
one of those. Saying the aura around the balrog was "like" a shadow is
a good way to draw that distinction. That aura isn't a shadow--it's
something that we'll be calling a shadow from here on in because it's
the only available word, but we are pointing out here that it is
different from what is normally understood as a shadow.
> In reality the logic simply doesn't work. That Tolkien used a simile
> to provide
> a transition from vagueness to clarity doesn't mean that neither the
> wings nor
> the shadow existed. It simply means Tolkien was using a literary
> device to
> create a transitional perception for the reader.
>
I have seen some of your parallels in which you describe the transition
from vagueness to clarity as a recurring Tolkien device. It has been a
long time, and I would like to see the other examples you cited; I
remember it seemed to me at the time that some of the other examples
actually functioned rather differently from the balrog passage--that
they were actually dramatic reversals; f'r instance, the bit in the
shire wher Merry appears out of the fog uses the limited information to
heighten tension, releasing it when we find out it's only Merry after
all, and specific mention is made of the way their fears had misled
their senses: "As he came out of the mist and their fears subsided, he
seemed suddenly to diminish to ordinary hobbit-size." The balrog having
wings does not seem to serve any similar dramatic purpose, nor are
changing perceptions made clear in any similar fashion. This is not to
say that a transition from vagueness to clarity isn't, to some extent,
happening--certainly it is. But I don't necessarily agree about typical
ways that Tolkien handles such transitions; I feel that when the clearer
situation contradicts the vague, he tends to make this clear, put some
emphasis on it, and generally do it for dramatic reasons of some sort.
Those two situations, at least, don't seem to me to compare well--as I
say, I'd like to look at the other scenarios you used for comparison on
this point.
> >So if we say "the shadow is not wings", all that implies about the
> other
> >passage is "a balrog is not a shadow". I don't have a problem with
> that.
> >Balrogs are not shadows.
>
> Actually, they ARE creatures of shadow -- literally, in the
> metaphorical sense
> that Tolkien uses "shadow".
Shadow and flame--and you yourself have made strong arguments that there
is a very solid, physical being involved, citing the mane etc.But I
would agree with you that Tolkien is using "shadow" in a metaphorical
sense, as you describe right down at the end of the post. I would say
that this modified sense of shadow is introduced by the use of "like"
drawing the distinction between that and what we normally would think of
as shadow.
(snip)
> To be called wings they need only be wing shaped.
Well, yes, sort of--but again, I would say that the simile points away
from more usual, primary definitions of "wing". And when I say primary
I mean that in a very full sense--the sub-definition allowing one to
call something a wing because it looked like one is dependent on the
notion of a "real" wing that it can look like.Of course on the other
hand (sort of) if, to literally call them wings they need only be wing
shaped, then in a sense it doesn't matter if Tolkien was using the
non-simile wings line merely to stand for "the shadow" or not--however
Tolkien was using the phrase, the result would still have a wing-like
appearance and, hence, by this definition, would be wings.
Since I do like to relate this whole thing to the "flying" issue I
remain kind of interested in whether we're taking the description to
mean the Balrog had something *that it would consider* wings--whether it
was something relatively fixed which might possibly in the right space
be used for flight etc.; and I feel that the language used contains an
indication that the answer to this would be "no." The parallel I've
come to enjoy on this is a passage in the chamber of Mazarbul in which a
hacked-off spear shaft is suddenly described as a truncheon--but I'll
get into that another time.
Of course the notion of balrogs not having anything like a fixed,
functional wing would not stop them from flying--I would not make such a
claim.
> What is Tolkien referring to when he uses the word "shadow" in these
> descriptions of the Balrog? True shadow is simply an area where light
> is
> absent, surrounded by an area where light is present (or where the
> intensities
> of light differ). If the Balrog was literally excluding light from
> passing
> through a physical region around itself, then this would in effect be
> a
> three-dimensional shadow (perceivable in itself, rather than as a
> negative
> projection on a background, as normal shadows are). Tolkien says (in
> "Of the
> Coming of the Elves and the Captivity of Melkor" in THE SILMARILLION)
> that the
> Balrogs were "cloaked in shadow". This is about as accurate an
> interpretation
> as I can render of that phrase, based on the description provided in
> THE
> FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING.
>
I like this bit; just kept it as a reference relative to a couple things
I said above. It is interesting comparing perspectives with you.
For anyone who may have been wondering from the bits at the end of my
posts, the Arrogant Worms are a Canadian group who sing funny songs;
they have some CDs out and are, IMHO, incredibly hilarious people. So I
decided to start promoting this odd bit of my country's culture on my
posts.
Rufus Polson
"Oh my good lord, I've lost what I had/I have suffered the fate of my
old dad
I've looked in the trees, the mountains, everywhere/But I cannot see
why you took my hair!"
Steuard Jensen
> On the LOTR passage--well, Steuard largely mentions a consensus on
> results of how the whatever-it-was-we-are-talking-about would appear,
> but doesn't take a position one way or the other on whether people who
> consider the passage to involve simile/metaphor are misguided.
> To me, Steuard's synthesis doesn't really solve the problem in the
> sense that, if you could hold down the balrog and force it to answer
> the question "do you have wings?" that synthesis doesn't give us an
> answer.
Much of the point of my pushing this "consensus" in understanding is
that I, at least, have little interest in arguing about the _name_ we
give to something. My interest here is in Tolkien's vision of
Middle-earth: I want to understand it as well as I can. I have
participated in the Balrog wing debates because I have wanted to get a
better idea of what they were. For me, then, the debate was over once
I saw that we agreed on the nature of Balrogs (at least reasonably
close agreement, anyway).
Thus, I am not all that interested in whether or not the Balrog would
use the word "wings" to describe the subject of our debate. I'm not
particularly excited about whether Tolkien's description in the
Khazad-dum scene technically uses simile or metaphor or neither: that
discussion is simply a means to an end that we've already reached. I
think that our agreement on the "facts" of the situation indicates
that we disagree less on the meaning of the description than it may
seem.
Steuard Jensen
defau...@domain.com
> Much of the point of my pushing this "consensus" in understanding is
> that I, at least, have little interest in arguing about the _name_ we
> give to something. My interest here is in Tolkien's vision of
> Middle-earth: I want to understand it as well as I can. I have
> participated in the Balrog wing debates because I have wanted to get a
>
> better idea of what they were. For me, then, the debate was over once
>
> I saw that we agreed on the nature of Balrogs (at least reasonably
> close agreement, anyway).
>
> Thus, I am not all that interested in whether or not the Balrog would
> use the word "wings" to describe the subject of our debate.
When I ask what the Balrog would call it, I'm trying to get at the
question of function--whether they're something permanent that the
Balrog would be aware of, number among its appendages, etc., or if it's
just an effect of the way its shadows happened to be swirling at the
time which it would have been quite unaware of. To put it a different
way, take the difference between a vampire and some guy wearing a set of
plastic teeth, or the difference between someone carrying a ray gun and
someone carrying some kind of power tool that looks the same. If I look
at the language use in the balrog wings passage one way, I see a
creature surrounded by shadows which happen at one point to take on an
appearance reminiscent of wings. If I look at the language use a
different way, I see a creature with some kind of appendage, even if
essentially noncorporeal in nature. Even if the two look the same, so
that an agreement on how it appeared is reached, I think the distinction
is one that has meaning. Personally, I go for the former. One can call
the shadowstuff 'wings'--I too don't care what it's called, really, but
I don't think it pointless to look into what it *is*. I realize that
the information available is sparse, and largely devoted to a
description of appearance, so it's a distinction that's tough to get
much guidance on. And certainly I'm not trying to force anyone to be
interested in it :-). But I still am, so I'm going to put in my two
bits on the subject.
Rufus Polson
defau...@domain.com
> Quoth defau...@domain.com:
> > For that matter, Steuard Jensen's posting, while very neutral,
> > covers largely consensus conclusions (some of which I do not agree
> > with), rather than points.
>
> I'm interested to know which "consensus conclusions" that I listed you
>
> disagree with (or for that matter, those that anyone else disagrees
> with). I'll be happy to un-label them as "generally agreed upon"
> if that turns out to be false.
>
First of all, I'd like to assure you that I do appreciate your efforts
and, in fact, agree with your summation by and large with regard to the
LOTR text. It does stick in my craw a little bit that, basically, the
consensus on wings was achieved by dispensing with any difference
between a wing and a thing that looks like a wing, based on a very minor
subsidiary dictionary definition which I strongly doubt was in Tolkien's
mind when he wrote the book. Let's not be too picky at this stage,
though.
The portion of the consensus that I am not in the tent on has to do with
the Hithlum passage.
(begin quote from your guide)
However... Some of us believe that the passage does not unambiguously
indicate that the Balrogs actually flew. Those who hold this opinion
say that it is possible to see the imagery of flight as an indication
of great speed (similar to the use of "flew" in the comment "I picked
up that book, and I just flew through it"). Others believe that the
passage does unambiguously indicate that the Balrogs literally flew.
(end quote)
In fact, I belong in a third camp. I think the primary reading of this
imagery is clearly not indicative of flight, and that it is a misreading
of the text to try to force literal flight onto it, just as it would be
a misreading of the expression "he's light on his feet" to suggest that
the person spoken of weighed fewer pounds than he ought to, perhaps
through the use of an antigravity device or helium balloon.
> Yes, I phrased those conclusions in the most neutral language I could
> in my summary; I was trying my hardest to be impartial, and happily it
>
> sounds like I was mostly successful.
Indeed, I think you were quite successful.(snip)
> > > If "like" means there were no wings, then it means there
> > > was no shadow to begin with, as the shadow is introduced with
> > > "like":
> > I lurked for a couple of years before I started posting, so I've
> been
> > following the wings debate for some time. I've seen this argument
> of
> > MM's a few times before, but nobody ever seriously engaged it.
>
> I have in the past, as have quite a few others; this very point was
> the source of the "Simile vs. Metaphor" subject line that labeled many
>
> Balrog Wing debates in the past. (Again, searching on deja.com could
> be productive for details.)
>
I did, in fact, watch the "Simile vs. Metaphor" debate for some time. I
don't recall the "no wings must mean no shadow" argument usually being
engaged--people often simply thought MM was talking rot on that one,
which he wasn't, and ignored that point or dismissed it rather than
coming to grips with it.(snippage)
> If you are determined to address the points in Michael's FAQ that
> bother you
I fear so. I was somewhat chagrined to find that around the time I had
seriously formulated my ideas on the subject, some of which I believed
and still believe had never been brought up, everyone finally reached
the point where the subject was considered too toxic to touch and
decided nothing new could be said on the subject. I've got an
opportunity here, so I'm going to slip in a point or three.
> , then I have this advice for you in light of your previous
> comment (right above the snip above): only debate one point at a
> time.
I'll see what I can do. I don't generally reply too often on any given
thread anyway--I usually stop once I feel I've said what I have to say.
I have enough confidence in my ability to present my thoughts clearly
that I generally figure the job's been done after a couple of passes.
In any case, I don't have time or energy for large scale contributions.
> If you try to debate everything at once (even if you put them
> in separate posts at first), there is too good a chance that once
> again the substance will get lost in the shuffle. Wait until we
> either reach a conclusion or an impasse on each point before starting
> the next, and maybe allow a couple days' breathing room in between,
> just to let any strained tempers relax. If we can go over some of the
>
> more contentious points in a "controlled environment", I think it
> would be good for all of us.
We can hope. As I say, believe it or not I actually think I have one or
two new things, especially on the Hithlum passage. Once I've said 'em,
and had the feeling that some of the more respected people around the NG
(such as yourself) have evaluated them, I will most likely drop the
subject without worrying about any such thing as seeking a resolution.
Rufus Polson
"I have to take the ferry to get to Galilee/but not my brother (oh no
not him) he walks across for free
I finally get to work, about a quarter after nine/Already he's turning
water into wine!"
--Arrogant Worms, 'Jesus' brother Bob'
defau...@domain.com
Michael Martinez wrote:
(snip lots)
> 8) Did Balrogs fly?
>
> Not in the 1916 story "The Fall of Gondolin". However, in a
> passage of
> "Quenta Silmarillion" which was not completely included in the
> published SILMARILLION, Tolkien wrote the following sentence:
>
> "Swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over
> Hithlum,
> and they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire."
>
> To date, all attempts to show that this passage can mean something
>
> other than that the Balrogs were flying have been unsuccessful.
I am not at all certain I agree with this, but my demonstration is a new
one and, I think, somewhat different from previous ones in at least one
key aspect.
> The
> sentence indicates the Balrogs were travelling very fast
> ("swiftly",
> "winged speed"), but their arrival in Lammoth indicates they came
> out of the sky (as a "storm of fire"). "Tempest" can mean
> something
> other than "storm", most notably "tumult", but a tumult is a great
>
> noise or confusion, and the sentence makes no sense if you
> substitute
> "tumult" (or great noise) for "tempest".
I would not argue here that "tempest" means anything other than
"storm". However, the phrase does not seem to me to be at all related
to issues of flight. It looks to me like a poetic commonplace, almost a
deliberate formula--along the lines of a kenning. The question is, is
comparing an onslaught of powerful beings to a tempest an indication
that they fly? Looking around just in LOTR, I have found an analogue.
In the battle of the Pelennor fields, when the black ships arrive with
Aragorn and lots of good guys in them, “now men leaped from the ships to
the quays of the Harlond and swept north like a storm.” It is unlikely
that those men were flying. Two less precise examples are at the battle
of Helm’s deep. In the last couple of pages the good guys’ onslaught is
twice described in terms of wind: “they drove through the hosts of
Isengard as a wind among grass.” and “The Orcs reeled and screamed and
cast aside both sword and spear. Like a black smoke driven by a
mounting wind they fled.” These two passages are separated by a page or
so; the first one admittedly is clearly described as low to the ground,
but still drives home the general use of the formula. All in all, it
seems as though flight is not necessary for Tolkien to use such
descriptions. In fact, given that there are two major battles where
such onslaughts might happen in LOTR, and Tolkien uses such language in
both of them to describe non-fliers, it seems like a positively common
technique for him. I suspect in the other books there are likely to be
other examples. I don't suppose anybody would be willing to have a look
round for me?
(megasnip)
Of course I agree with MM's statement in his more general discussions of
the issue that an argument should be built on the whole, not just one
smidge. That's the portion brought up in the FAQ, though, and that's
the portion I happen to have something original to say about; my beliefs
on the rest largely follow what other posters have already said, so I'm
not bothering to reiterate them here. It does seem, though, that the
tempest bit is a key element.
Rufus Polson
Michael Martinez
<3790ce81...@news.btinternet.com>, weath...@btinternet.com resolved to
say for all to read and review:
>
>I think the wings in the passage about the Balrog in Moria were like
>extensions of its *presence*, not wings that would be used for flying.
>(IMO, it's not wings that enable the Balrogs to fly, but rather their
>inherent magic - although to make something that size fly, you would
>need physical wings that would stretch across the chamber.)
Assuming the flying creature has considerable mass, yes, this is so. But the
only passage we have which speaks of flying Balrogs indicates they were sort of
fireballs. How massive is a fully flaming Balrog? I'm not sure the Balrog of
Moria was fully flaming while in the presence of the Fellowship. It seemed to
be fully flaming while grappling with Gandalf on the way down, and when they
fought on the mountain peak, but I don't think the fire was blazing to the nth
degree while it stood before the Fellowship.
I guess that's open to interpretation.
Michael Martinez
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 12:19:14 -0700, in article <3790D732...@domain.com>,
defau...@domain.com resolved to say for all to read and review:
>You, on the other hand, by clearly rejecting any notion of
>language being used in figurative ways, seem in the end to be stating
>that the 'wings' are 'wings' in some real sense, however shadowy that
>real sense may be.
The FAQ doesn't reject anything out of hand. It attempts to show that the
language CANNOT be used figuratively in that sense. I suppose I could rewrite
it to be longer, but I was aiming for conciseness (which is hardly my trademark,
I know).
>.. To me, Steuard's synthesis doesn't really solve the
>problem in the sense that, if you could hold down the balrog and force
>it to answer the question "do you have wings?" that synthesis doesn't
>give us an answer. I have the feeling that your position more or less
>implies that the balrog would say "yes.", although do correct me if I'm
>wrong.
I don't presume to speak for Balrogs, whatever anyone else would say about me on
that score. Tolkien spoke of the wings in a very literal sense. That was
enough for me to begin with. I have dealt with the "figurative speech" argument
as best I can. Those who adhere to it faithfully seem to be disregarding all
evidence to the contrary. I cannot force anyone to change their views. I can
only try to persuade.
>> You may or may not recall the "Simile and Metaphor" threads, then. :)
>
>Yes. I have come to the conclusion that the term "Metaphor" is nigh
>impossible to define. For purposes of any given discussion, though, you
>don't need to know what it means, you just need to know what the person
>who uses it means by it. Then you can figure out whether the resulting
>statement is true.
Well, yes and no. Language is our only means of communication, so we need to
adhere to the standards that are most commonly accepted. We'll never get
anywhere if each of us gets to make up our own definitions for words as
required.
It's already difficult to find a common ground over words with plentiful
meanings (more than one of certain types especially). Context becomes very
important, but it's far more important that people not attempt to use the words
in new ways simply to press home a point that is dear to them.
A metaphor is basically something which stands for something else. We should
have been able to find common ground there, but it may be that my questions
about WHAT the supposed metaphors stood for just seemed incomprehensible to the
people using the term. As far as I could determine, the people who most
ardently argued for the metaphorical perspective simply didn't understand what
metaphor is. I think they said the same thing about me, but I didn't have to
look far to find standard definitions which backed up what I said.
>> First of all, you're deconstructing the sentence improperly. "like
>> two vast
>> wings" is acting as an adverbial phrase. It is modifying the verbal
>> phrase
>> "reached out":
>>
>> Subject verbal phrase adverbial phrase
>> Shadow reached out like two vast wings
>>
>> The phrase therefore describes the action, not the subject.
>
>You have a point, although that also reduces any parallel between the
>two sentences you compare....
My only purpose in alluding to a parallel is to show that if the word "like"
really implies there are no wings, it MUST (by that criterion) imply that there
is no shadow, BECAUSE THE APPLICATION IS INAPPROPRIATE. i.e., it's an illogical
assertion to begin with, so I simply extend it to show the illogic in
exaggeration.
>...For that matter, I think there's a gray area of language use here--since
>I don't know of any commonly accepted consensus about a special way that
>wings tend to reach out, I'd say there's an implication that the shadow can't
>be reaching out like wings unless it is in some way like wings. Nonetheless,
>my basic point here is that I am not saying, and I can't recall anybody
>arguing, that this sentence contains a claim or implication "there are no
>wings", only "the shadow is not wings"...
The basis of the "like is a simile and therefore means the wings are not real"
argument is the assumption that there are no wings.
>...In normal usage, I believe, it is fairly clear that a comparison of this
>sort implies that there is not an identity. I would be surprised to read a
>sentence in which (a) did (b) like (c) and then find out it was because (a)
>*was* (c).
It is not an issue of identity. It is an issue of understanding simile and its
uses. Tolkien used the simile to introduce aspects of the creature vaguely, so
as to provide for granting clarification later.
>> Hence, if "like" means there were no wings, "like" means there was no
>> shadow.
>
>This is the core. "like" doesn't mean "there were no wings", it only
>means "the shadow was not wings."
No, it cannot mean that. The sentence doesn't even begin to imply that sort of
meaning. "like" is not a negative connector, it's a positive connector. i.e.,
"like" (as a simile) tells the reader (or listener) that there is a perceivable
quality in A which is comparable to B, not the other way around.
>...Therefore, "like" doesn't have to mean, "there was no shadow".
You're confused on the point. If "like" is being used negatively in the second
sentence (which it cannot be -- it simply doesn't work that way), then it has to
be working negatively in the first sentence (also illogical, but once the rule
is applied, it must be applied everywhere the word occurs). Hence, if "like"
really means the shadow that reaches out ISN'T wings, then it really means that
the Balrog has no shadow to begin with.
This is a purely arbitrary perception based on the assumption that the Balrog
cannot have wings. There is no way to refute illogic. Illogic refutes itself.
I can provide example after example of how Tolkien provids a transition from
vagueness to clarity, but unless he uses the same sentences exactly in all
situations, people can point to the different passages and say, "Well, he
doesn't say the exact same thing here, so it doesn't count."
That the assertion the Balrog didn't have wings is illogical isn't taken into
consideration. The Balrogs has wings because J.R.R. Tolkien said it had wings.
That is as axiomatic as Aragorn's sword being broken during the trip from Bree
to Rivendell. You cannot refute J.R.R. Tolkien on the Balrog's wings, but the
entire Balrogs wings debate has been predicated on the assumption that this can
somehow be done.
I have tried to accomodate people who want to read something into the text which
isn't there by showing WHY we can safely take the author's word literally, but
all such points can only be presented logically. I cannot use illogic to prove
the Balrog had wings any more than anyone else can use illogic to prove it
didn't have wings.
Tolkien said it had wings. They stretched from wall to wall. That one
statement should have precluded any need for debate whatsoever. We all might as
well be arguing over whether Narsil was really broken about a foot below the
hilt.
Michael Martinez
>question of function--whether they're something permanent that the
>Balrog would be aware of, number among its appendages, etc., or if it's
>just an effect of the way its shadows happened to be swirling at the
>time which it would have been quite unaware of.
[snip]
Function is really irrelevant. Ostriches and rheas have wings which don't
enable them to fly. Therefore whether the Balrog has wings doesn't depend on
whether they enabled it to fly. The wings "function" in that they extend
outwards. An ostrich or rhea can move its wings, so they "function". Tolkien
called the wings "wings", not something else. There is no need to test the
validity of his statement by asking whether these wings "functioned" as wings.
And since not all wings enable flight, asking about "function" really doesn't
get you anywhere.
Michael Martinez
>and, in fact, agree with your summation by and large with regard to the
>LOTR text. It does stick in my craw a little bit that, basically, the
>consensus on wings was achieved by dispensing with any difference
>between a wing and a thing that looks like a wing, based on a very minor
>subsidiary dictionary definition which I strongly doubt was in Tolkien's
>mind when he wrote the book. Let's not be too picky at this stage,
>though.
That's a rather authoritarian dismissal of the definitions provided, don't you
think? Aren't you doing exactly what you are complaining about?
>The portion of the consensus that I am not in the tent on has to do with
>the Hithlum passage.
>(begin quote from your guide)
>However... Some of us believe that the passage does not unambiguously
>indicate that the Balrogs actually flew. Those who hold this opinion
>say that it is possible to see the imagery of flight as an indication
>of great speed (similar to the use of "flew" in the comment "I picked
>up that book, and I just flew through it"). Others believe that the
>passage does unambiguously indicate that the Balrogs literally flew.
>(end quote)
>
>In fact, I belong in a third camp. I think the primary reading of this
>imagery is clearly not indicative of flight, and that it is a misreading
>of the text to try to force literal flight onto it, just as it would be
>a misreading of the expression "he's light on his feet" to suggest that
>the person spoken of weighed fewer pounds than he ought to, perhaps
>through the use of an antigravity device or helium balloon.
But you're not offering an alternative reading of the text. You're just
arbitrarily dismissing the only interpretation of "arrived in Lammoth as a
tempest of fire" which so far stands up to scrutiny. The "winged speed" phrase
is not as significant as the "tempest of fire" phrase.
>> If you are determined to address the points in Michael's FAQ that
>> bother you
>
>I fear so. I was somewhat chagrined to find that around the time I had
>seriously formulated my ideas on the subject, some of which I believed
>and still believe had never been brought up, everyone finally reached
>the point where the subject was considered too toxic to touch and
>decided nothing new could be said on the subject. I've got an
>opportunity here, so I'm going to slip in a point or three.
The Balrog Wings FAQ in no way brings an end to the argument. It merely
summarizes the arguments which have been presented so far. The "no wings"
arguments are phrased as questions and the "pro-wings" arguments are phrased as
answers. This seems biased to you, but if I could have reversed the roles of
the arguments the FAQ would have ended up looking absurd (or else just leaving
out numerous relevant facts altogether, which is also absurd).
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>(snip lots)
>
>>
>> Not in the 1916 story "The Fall of Gondolin". However, in a
>> passage of "Quenta Silmarillion" which was not completely
>> included in the published SILMARILLION, Tolkien wrote the following
>> sentence:
>>
>> "Swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over
>> Hithlum, and they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire."
>>
>> To date, all attempts to show that this passage can mean something
>> other than that the Balrogs were flying have been unsuccessful.
>
>one and, I think, somewhat different from previous ones in at least one
>key aspect.
What exactly do you disagree with? There have been no successful attempts (as
of the writing of the FAQ) to show the passage can mean something else.
>> The sentence indicates the Balrogs were travelling very fast
>> ("swiftly", "winged speed"), but their arrival in Lammoth indicates they
>> came out of the sky (as a "storm of fire"). "Tempest" can mean
>> something other than "storm", most notably "tumult", but a tumult is a great
>> noise or confusion, and the sentence makes no sense if you substitute
>> "tumult" (or great noise) for "tempest".
>
>I would not argue here that "tempest" means anything other than
>"storm". However, the phrase does not seem to me to be at all related
>to issues of flight. It looks to me like a poetic commonplace, almost a
>deliberate formula--along the lines of a kenning. The question is, is
>comparing an onslaught of powerful beings to a tempest an indication
>that they fly? Looking around just in LOTR, I have found an analogue.
>In the battle of the Pelennor fields, when the black ships arrive with
>Aragorn and lots of good guys in them, “now men leaped from the ships to
>the quays of the Harlond and swept north like a storm.” It is unlikely
>that those men were flying.
This is not an analogue, however. Does Tolkien say these men "arise", "pass
over" a country (with or without "winged speed") and come to a land AS "a
storm"? No. He is using "storm" here to indicate the fury of their passage,
but because they are men -- and we know already that men do not fly -- there is
no reason for the reader to think that Tolkien means these men are flying.
There is nothing else in the sentence that might indicate flight. With the
Hithlum passage, there are four indicators of flight which, when taken together,
mean only one thing:
"swiftly they arose" + "passed over Hithlum" + "with winged speed" + "came to
Lammoth as a tempest of fire" = flying Balrogs.
>...Two less precise examples are at the battle
>of Helm’s deep. In the last couple of pages the good guys’ onslaught is
>twice described in terms of wind: “they drove through the hosts of
>Isengard as a wind among grass.” and “The Orcs reeled and screamed and
>cast aside both sword and spear. Like a black smoke driven by a
>mounting wind they fled.”
[snip]
Same problem as above. These are not analogues of the Hithlum passage.
defau...@domain.com
> On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 21:08:56 -0700, in article
> defau...@domain.com resolved to say for all to read and review:
> >
> >When I ask what the Balrog would call it, I'm trying to get at the
> >question of function--whether they're something permanent that the
> >Balrog would be aware of, number among its appendages, etc., or if
> it's
> >just an effect of the way its shadows happened to be swirling at the
> >time which it would have been quite unaware of.
>
> [snip]
>
> Function is really irrelevant. Ostriches and rheas have wings which
> don't
> enable them to fly. Therefore whether the Balrog has wings doesn't
> depend on
> whether they enabled it to fly. The wings "function" in that they
> extend
> outwards. An ostrich or rhea can move its wings, so they "function".
> Tolkien
> called the wings "wings", not something else. There is no need to
> test the
> validity of his statement by asking whether these wings "functioned"
> as wings.
> And since not all wings enable flight, asking about "function" really
> doesn't
> get you anywhere.
Fine, use a different word than "function"; "permanence", say. You will
note that the paragraph you quote doesn't actually mention flight at
all, and that wasn't really the point I was getting at. For that
matter, I suppose the balrog could have permanent wing structures and
for some reason (hypnosis?) be unaware of them. I was just trying to
get around the fact that our current working definition of the word
"wing" is very vague and could include accidental, momentary features as
near as I can make out.
Rufus Polson
defau...@domain.com
> It does stick in my craw a little bit that, basically, the
> >consensus on wings was achieved by dispensing with any difference
> >between a wing and a thing that looks like a wing, based on a very
> minor
> >subsidiary dictionary definition which I strongly doubt was in
> Tolkien's
> >mind when he wrote the book. Let's not be too picky at this stage,
> >though.
>
> That's a rather authoritarian dismissal of the definitions provided,
> don't you
> think? Aren't you doing exactly what you are complaining about?
>
Well, I didn't actually dismiss it. I am, reluctantly, willing to work
with it--however, I do have certain feelings about the situation. I
expressed them. Sorry a bunch. To be honest, I think the dictionary
definition in question--item (7) on the list for "wing" from that
dictionary's entry--committed the cardinal sin of defining a word in
terms of itself, which in terms of dictionary practise is, as I
understand it, a bit of a no-no. Despite this opinion, I am willing to
work with the situation. That willingness isn't going to change my
basic opinion about it.
> >The portion of the consensus that I am not in the tent on has to do
> with
> >the Hithlum passage.
> >(begin quote from your guide)
> >However... Some of us believe that the passage does not unambiguously
>
> >indicate that the Balrogs actually flew. Those who hold this opinion
>
> >say that it is possible to see the imagery of flight as an indication
>
> >of great speed (similar to the use of "flew" in the comment "I picked
>
> >up that book, and I just flew through it"). Others believe that the
> >passage does unambiguously indicate that the Balrogs literally flew.
> >(end quote)
> >
> >In fact, I belong in a third camp. I think the primary reading of
> this
> >imagery is clearly not indicative of flight, and that it is a
> misreading
> >of the text to try to force literal flight onto it, just as it would
> be
> >a misreading of the expression "he's light on his feet" to suggest
> that
> >the person spoken of weighed fewer pounds than he ought to, perhaps
> >through the use of an antigravity device or helium balloon.
>
> But you're not offering an alternative reading of the text. You're
> just
> arbitrarily dismissing the only interpretation of "arrived in Lammoth
> as a
> tempest of fire" which so far stands up to scrutiny. The "winged
> speed" phrase
> is not as significant as the "tempest of fire" phrase.
>
Steuard asked me on what points I disagreed with the idea that there was
a consensus. I told him. He didn't ask me for my reasons. I didn't in
this post give them. I don't see why there's a problem with that. If
Steuard has a problem with that, then fine--otherwise I'll try to keep
my subject lines straight.
> I was somewhat chagrined to find that around the time I had
> >seriously formulated my ideas on the subject, some of which I
> believed
> >and still believe had never been brought up, everyone finally reached
>
> >the point where the subject was considered too toxic to touch and
> >decided nothing new could be said on the subject. I've got an
> >opportunity here, so I'm going to slip in a point or three.
>
> The Balrog Wings FAQ in no way brings an end to the argument.
Never said or intended to imply that you made such a claim. My
reference in the para. above was to "everyone", as in the NG as a
community, not wanting the topic discussed. I personally welcome your
FAQ as a chance to briefly reopen the topic, even if I remain
unconvinced that it was exactly what the poster you put it up in
response to was asking for.
> It merely
> summarizes the arguments which have been presented so far. The "no
> wings"
> arguments are phrased as questions and the "pro-wings" arguments are
> phrased as
> answers. This seems biased to you, but if I could have reversed the
> roles of
> the arguments the FAQ would have ended up looking absurd (or else just
> leaving
> out numerous relevant facts altogether, which is also absurd).
>
As long as you hold the opinion that arguments with merit have been put
forward on only one side, I suppose that is true. The point, to me, is
that since there exist people who, putting together an FAQ, would put in
systematically different facts/arguments and leave out systematically
different facts/arguments, *even if they're flat wrong* it remains the
case that a "neutral" summary would include some of those flat wrong
arguments, to be evaluated on their merits or lack thereof. I'm not
saying it's your responsibility in any way to do so, or that there's
anything wrong with your putting out your FAQ--just that in the
particular case where you posted it, it wasn't precisely what the poster
had asked for, but instead was something different.
Totally OT, I notice that I'm coming up as "defau...@domain.com".
I'm using Netscape Communicator, and I did go through a process some
time back that should, I think, be putting my personal email address in
there--but I had a system crash/general wonkiness a while back, and I
believe when I reloaded everything a couple of chunks of Netscape went
missing, so it's not grabbing that file with personal info. I may have
to download Netscape again so I'll have the whole thing. For anyone
who's wondering, the e-mail is dpo...@sfu.ca. I'm afraid I'm not all
that adept with computers.
Rufus Polson
defau...@domain.com
> I don't presume to speak for Balrogs, whatever anyone else would say
> about me on
> that score. Tolkien spoke of the wings in a very literal sense. That
> was
> enough for me to begin with. I have dealt with the "figurative
> speech" argument
> as best I can. Those who adhere to it faithfully seem to be
> disregarding all
> evidence to the contrary. I cannot force anyone to change their
> views. I can
> only try to persuade.
>
Well, without trying to determine anything about whether I would refer
to the final wings reference as literal, figurative, metaphorical or
what, or just what any of those things would mean in connection with our
operative definition of the word "wing", I'd like to bring up a passage
I feel has a similar use of language. It takes place in the chamber of
Mazarbul, when the orc-chieftain spears Frodo.
“ . . . he charged into the company and thrust with his spear straight
at Frodo . . . Sam, with a cry, hacked at the spear-shaft,and it broke.
But even as the orc flung down the truncheon . . .”
OK, so did the orc have a truncheon? Wellll, sort of. What he had was
a spear with the point and part of the shaft hacked off. Such a thing,
in effect, is more or less a truncheon--you could bludgeon somebody with
it, it’s shaped like a club, it ain’t got a point no more. It wasn’t
intended to be a truncheon, though, and the orc evidently made no
attempt to use it as one, and if you’d asked any of the characters
present whether there was a truncheon in the room/employed by any of the
combatants they’d have told you no, unless they realized it was a trick
question.
It was, however, a flat-out statement on Tolkien's part that there
was a truncheon, similar to the flat-out statement on Tolkien's part
that there were wings. Thus, I would say the wings line doesn't
constrain Tolkien's meaning to any kind of wing that is a permanent,
intended feature. Whether you would want to claim, in either case, that
the language use was metaphorical, literal, figurative or what is
something that I don't want to get into.
It seems to me that it would be best described as compact
language--Tolkien using a word that would suggest the impression he
wanted, in a non-standard (and therefore fresh) but highly economical
way. A person could look at the “its wings were spread” passage in a
similar spirit. Were they wings? Was the truncheon a truncheon?
Perhaps they really were “sort of” wings--that is, they were shadowstuff
that was at that point shaped like wings, which depending on the
dictionary definitions used, would be enough for a valid claim to
winghood. I would suggest that Tolkien was giving a quick impression in
a very compact and highly dramatic form--that they weren’t “really”
wings, in the sense of a permanent structure, but wingness was a
dramatic and quick way of describing the appearance of the situation,
just like “truncheon”.
Rufus Polson
Michael Martinez
>note that the paragraph you quote doesn't actually mention flight at
>all, and that wasn't really the point I was getting at. For that
>matter, I suppose the balrog could have permanent wing structures and
>for some reason (hypnosis?) be unaware of them. I was just trying to
>get around the fact that our current working definition of the word
>"wing" is very vague and could include accidental, momentary features as
>near as I can make out.
"permanence" and "function" are not two words I would easily confuse or use
interchangeably.
I cannot see the point of discussing whether an aspect of the Balrog was
permanet or not. We have no textual basis for determining anything like that.
Carl Steiger
was tied in knots over this more than 20 years ago! Well, looking over the
FAQ list, it seems to me that the answers to FAQs numbers 3 and 7 contradict
each other, but in my mind "wings" are material things, whereas
"shadow-stuff wings" belong to the realm of metaphor. The answer to FAQ #11
is right on the money!
However, at this point in my life, it's not that burning an issue to me any
more, but I will still be annoyed if I see any flesh-and-bone bat-wings
attached to the balrog in the movie.
Michael Martinez wrote in message <7mnvv2$g...@drn.newsguy.com>...
RLV
>
> This is another note on elements of MM's Balrog Wings FAQ.
> Michael Martinez wrote:
> (snip lots)
>
> >
> > Not in the 1916 story "The Fall of Gondolin". However, in a
> > passage of
> > "Quenta Silmarillion" which was not completely included in the
> > published SILMARILLION, Tolkien wrote the following sentence:
> > "Swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over
> > Hithlum,
> > and they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire."
> > To date, all attempts to show that this passage can mean something
> > other than that the Balrogs were flying have been unsuccessful.
Rufus, this is just MM's opinion. Many people will probably disagree.
The fact is, this point has been discussed here to some length, and no
consensus has been reached. Many people don't think that "all attempts
to show that this passage can mean something other than that the Balrogs
were flying have been unsuccessful".
With this I'm not expressing my opinion about the Wingedness of Balrogs.
As you seem to be new to me (I don't remember seeing your sig before),
you might not know about previous discussions of this matter.
BTW, if you really are new here, welcome. :-)
R.L.V.
~~#~~
"Call me Wingalam"
Michael Martinez
>
>> I don't presume to speak for Balrogs, whatever anyone else would say
>> about me on that score. Tolkien spoke of the wings in a very literal sense.
>> That was enough for me to begin with. I have dealt with the "figurative
>> speech" argument as best I can. Those who adhere to it faithfully seem to
>> be disregarding all evidence to the contrary. I cannot force anyone to
>> change their views. I can only try to persuade.
>>
>
>to the final wings reference as literal, figurative, metaphorical or
>what, or just what any of those things would mean in connection with our
>operative definition of the word "wing", I'd like to bring up a passage
>I feel has a similar use of language. It takes place in the chamber of
>Mazarbul, when the orc-chieftain spears Frodo.
>
> “ . . . he charged into the company and thrust with his spear straight
>at Frodo . . . Sam, with a cry, hacked at the spear-shaft,and it broke.
>But even as the orc flung down the truncheon . . .”
I don't see the "similar use" you're referring to here.
>OK, so did the orc have a truncheon? Wellll, sort of. What he had was
>a spear with the point and part of the shaft hacked off. Such a thing,
>in effect, is more or less a truncheon--you could bludgeon somebody with
>it, it’s shaped like a club, it ain’t got a point no more. It wasn’t
>intended to be a truncheon, though, and the orc evidently made no
>attempt to use it as one, and if you’d asked any of the characters
>present whether there was a truncheon in the room/employed by any of the
>combatants they’d have told you no, unless they realized it was a trick
>question.
Why would you think the characters would not call it a truncheon? Are you not
aware that an obsolete meaning for "truncheon" is "the shaft of a spear"?
Tolkien seems to have known this. I can see no reason to object to his use of
the word here, unless his use of archaic and obsolete words in general is
objectionable.
Michael Martinez
>
>> >It does stick in my craw a little bit that, basically, the
>> >consensus on wings was achieved by dispensing with any difference
>> >between a wing and a thing that looks like a wing, based on a very
>> >minor subsidiary dictionary definition which I strongly doubt was
>> >in Tolkien's mind when he wrote the book. Let's not be too picky
>> >at this stage, though.
>>
>> That's a rather authoritarian dismissal of the definitions provided,
>> don't you think? Aren't you doing exactly what you are complaining about?
>>
>
>Well, I didn't actually dismiss it. I am, reluctantly, willing to work
>with it--however, I do have certain feelings about the situation. I
>expressed them. Sorry a bunch. To be honest, I think the dictionary
>definition in question--item (7) on the list for "wing" from that
>dictionary's entry--committed the cardinal sin of defining a word in
>terms of itself, which in terms of dictionary practise is, as I
>understand it, a bit of a no-no. Despite this opinion, I am willing to
>work with the situation. That willingness isn't going to change my
>basic opinion about it.
Unless it is merely to dismiss the notion that the Balrog had wings out of hand,
I don't understand why you should object to the applicability of one definition
over another. Tolkien wasn't obligated to use only the first definition found
in any one specific dictionary for every word. A wing is sometimes a wing
simply because it resembles in shape (and maybe function) the appendage of a
flying creature which is used to create lift. We have no other word for such
things that I'm aware of. The word "wing" says "here is a thing which is shaped
like a flying creature's wing." That's not really using the word to define
itself. If you want an example of that, just look at the standard computer
science definition for "recursion":
Recursion. See, recursion.
>> >In fact, I belong in a third camp. I think the primary reading of
>> >this imagery is clearly not indicative of flight, and that it is a
>> >misreading of the text to try to force literal flight onto it, just
>> >as it would be a misreading of the expression "he's light on his feet"
>> >to suggest that the person spoken of weighed fewer pounds than he ought
>> >to, perhaps through the use of an antigravity device or helium balloon.
>>
>> But you're not offering an alternative reading of the text. You're
>> just arbitrarily dismissing the only interpretation of "arrived in
>> Lammoth as a tempest of fire" which so far stands up to scrutiny. The
>> "winged speed" phrase is not as significant as the "tempest of fire" phrase.
>>
>
>Steuard asked me on what points I disagreed with the idea that there was
>a consensus. I told him. He didn't ask me for my reasons. I didn't in
>this post give them. I don't see why there's a problem with that. If
>Steuard has a problem with that, then fine--otherwise I'll try to keep
>my subject lines straight.
Well, you say you're in a third camp, but I don't see the third alternative.
The "balrogs were flying" interpretation is supported by the meanings for
"tempest" and the fact that all four parts of the passage, taken together, don't
mean anything else. The "balrogs were only moving across country very quickly"
interpretation simply ignores the meanings of "tempest" (or misunderstands them,
since some people argued vigorously for substituting "tumult" in there). What
third alternative do you feel there is? I thought you were arguing for the
"balrogs were only moving across country very quickly" reading. It certainly
looks that way to me.
It's not enough to say, "the passage doesn't mean X", you need to provide a "Y"
to show that maybe your statement is correct.
>> >I was somewhat chagrined to find that around the time I had
>> >seriously formulated my ideas on the subject, some of which I
>> >believed and still believe had never been brought up, everyone finally
>> >reached the point where the subject was considered too toxic to touch and
>> >decided nothing new could be said on the subject. I've got an
>> >opportunity here, so I'm going to slip in a point or three.
>>
>> The Balrog Wings FAQ in no way brings an end to the argument.
>
>Never said or intended to imply that you made such a claim. My
>reference in the para. above was to "everyone", as in the NG as a
>community, not wanting the topic discussed. I personally welcome your
>FAQ as a chance to briefly reopen the topic, even if I remain
>unconvinced that it was exactly what the poster you put it up in
>response to was asking for.
I'll tell you why I think most people don't want to see it discussed any more.
They're afraid I'll followup to every post saying that Balrogs have wings with a
long-winded "nope", and that somewhere in the midst of the ensuing disagreements
someone will start a flame war (or several of them). That is usually what
happens, and people seem to be getting tired of it.
It gets personal all too quickly. I think that's why people don't want to see
it any more.
Besides, not much new material has been brought to light the last few times
around.
>> It merely summarizes the arguments which have been presented so far. The
>> "no wings" arguments are phrased as questions and the "pro-wings" arguments
>> are phrased as answers. This seems biased to you, but if I could have
>> reversed the roles of the arguments the FAQ would have ended up looking
>> absurd (or else just leaving out numerous relevant facts altogether, which
>> is also absurd).
>
>As long as you hold the opinion that arguments with merit have been put
>forward on only one side, I suppose that is true...
Is that the opinion I hold? I don't recall expressing it (let alone actually
holding it). I HAVE responded most often to the illogical argument that keeps
coming up (the "like" thingee). There is nothing wrong with pointing out the
fallacies of that argument.
>...The point, to me, is that since there exist people who, putting together
>an FAQ, would put in systematically different facts/arguments and leave out
>systematically different facts/arguments, *even if they're flat wrong* it
>remains the case that a "neutral" summary would include some of those flat
>wrong arguments, to be evaluated on their merits or lack thereof.
I don't think you understand what FAQs are all about. Have you read the
Cannabis FAQ, for instance? Now there is a document that veers away from the
truth as much as possible. It's pure propaganda and bullshit. And it gets
autoposted on a regular basis and no doubt is referred to by people in various
arguments over the issues of whether marijuana is addictive (it is) or cancerous
(it is that, too -- more so than untreated tobacco).
A FAQ is just the FAQ writer's point of view. Anyone can ask a question, anyone
can attempt to answer it. There are, in some news groups, alternative FAQs
which are posted in followup to FAQs, simply because whomever wrote the
alternative FAQs felt the FAQ writers were being misleading or didn't answer the
questions sufficiently.
There is no stopping anyone who wants to write their own Balrog Wings FAQ which
proposes the "like" argument as the definitive answer. That won't prevent me
(or other people -- I'm not the only person who has pointed out the fallacy in
the "like means no wings" argument) from shooting holes in the thing.
>...I'm not saying it's your responsibility in any way to do so, or that there's
>anything wrong with your putting out your FAQ--just that in the
>particular case where you posted it, it wasn't precisely what the poster
>had asked for, but instead was something different.
What the poster asked for was a summary of the debate over the wings. My FAQ is
precisely that and no more. What I didn't include -- intentionally -- was
reference to who took what sides, what flame wars arose out of the debate, or
all the tangential threads which developed (such as what constitutes simile and
metaphor). I just listed the two sides, one being the challenging questions and
one being the responses to the challenging questions.
I wrote the FAQ out of frustration because it was getting to the point where as
soon as we'd discuss all the major points someone would start it up all over
again. By just posting the FAQ I am able to address people's questions quickly
and all at once. Not with the great depth that comes from a full debate, but if
someone really wants to read all that I have to say on Balrog wings (or all that
other people have to say on the subject), most of the articles are still
archived on Deja.Com.
Michael Martinez
resolved to say for all to read and review:
>
>>
>> This is another note on elements of MM's Balrog Wings FAQ.
>> Michael Martinez wrote:
>> (snip lots)
>>
>> > 8) Did Balrogs fly?
>> >
>> > Not in the 1916 story "The Fall of Gondolin". However, in a
>> > passage of "Quenta Silmarillion" which was not completely included in
>> > the published SILMARILLION, Tolkien wrote the following sentence:
>> > "Swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over
>> > To date, all attempts to show that this passage can mean something
>> > other than that the Balrogs were flying have been unsuccessful.
>
>Rufus, this is just MM's opinion.
You say that as if it were true.
>Many people will probably disagree.
Given MY reputation? Maybe they'll all send their disagreement in email to
someone, but so far this thread is the first time anyone has expressed any
disagreement with this part of the FAQ and, quite frankly, your recent flaming
in the group has made it clear you seem determined to disagree with me on any
point possible.
Of course now, if you'd like to cite an article where someone has actually shown
that the passage can mean something else, please feel free. There's always the
chance such an effort passed by me while I was offline or something.
Michael Martinez
<93232625...@news.remarQ.com>, "Carl resolved to say for all to read and
review:
>
>I can't believe people are still arguing about balrog wings! My D&D clique
>was tied in knots over this more than 20 years ago! Well, looking over the
>FAQ list, it seems to me that the answers to FAQs numbers 3 and 7 contradict
>each other, but in my mind "wings" are material things, whereas
>"shadow-stuff wings" belong to the realm of metaphor. The answer to FAQ #11
>is right on the money!
Sorry -- metaphor doesn't work that way. But what, exactly, do you feel is the
contradiction, if you don't mind my asking?
>>3) What about the word "like" in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING? Doesn't
>> it prove that the wings were just a metaphor?
>>
>> The wings were seen by the members of the Fellowship. They were
>> hardly metaphorical (metaphors are used in narrative or to convey
>> ideas in character-to-character discussions). That Tolkien used
>> the word "like" in the clause "and the shadow about it reached out
>> like two vast wings" doesn't itself indicate the wings were not
>> there. This is only the first indication that there were indeed
>> wings. If "like" means there were no wings, then it means there
>> was no shadow to begin with, as the shadow is introduced with
>> "like": "What it was could not be seen: it was like a great
>> shadow...." And since the "shadow" is referred to, it must have
>> existed, just as since the wings were referred to they must have
>> existed.
>>7) What were the wings made of?
>>
>> We don't know. Quite probably "shadow-stuff", whatever it was which
>> the Balrogs used to cloak themselves in darkness. They probably
>> were not made of flesh and blood, or feathers, and need not have
>> been membraneous (skin stretched across appendages).
--
defau...@domain.com
> defau...@domain.com wrote:
> >
> > This is another note on elements of MM's Balrog Wings FAQ.
> > Michael Martinez wrote:
> > (snip lots)
> >
> > > 8) Did Balrogs fly?
> > >
> > > Not in the 1916 story "The Fall of Gondolin". However, in a
> > > passage of
> > > "Quenta Silmarillion" which was not completely included in the
>
> > > published SILMARILLION, Tolkien wrote the following sentence:
> > > "Swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over
> > > Hithlum,
> > > and they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire."
> > > To date, all attempts to show that this passage can mean
> something
> > > other than that the Balrogs were flying have been
> unsuccessful.
>
> Rufus, this is just MM's opinion. Many people will probably disagree.
> The fact is, this point has been discussed here to some length, and no
>
> consensus has been reached. Many people don't think that "all attempts
>
> to show that this passage can mean something other than that the
> Balrogs
> were flying have been unsuccessful".
> With this I'm not expressing my opinion about the Wingedness of
> Balrogs.
> As you seem to be new to me (I don't remember seeing your sig before),
>
> you might not know about previous discussions of this matter.
>
> BTW, if you really are new here, welcome. :-)
>
Thanks. I've been lurking for a long time (2 yrs + off and on), but
have only posted a few things before. I have seen a good bit of
argument on the Hithlum passage, but for purposes of introducing a new
point (with genuine quotations!) I was willing to avoid disputing issues
not directly relevant to it. And at the same time, I think the whole
'paraphrase' controversy to have been essentially a red herring, and
similarly all the talk about 'disturbances' etc. to be basically
irrelevant; I do think that the simile has to do with tempest as storm,
I just happen to think that treating a simile in overliteral terms is an
error, especially when dealing with elevated language. As such, I
avoided bringing it all up.
Nice to see that at least one regular poster isn't just skipping the
whole thread because of the dreaded 'B' word! :-)
Rufus Polson
"We're the second largest country upon this planet earth
And if Russia keeps on shrinking, then soon we'll be first! (as long as
we keep Quebec)"
--Arrogant Worms, 'Canada's really big'; should be sung with intense
mock patriotism.
Michael Martinez
defau...@domain.com resolved to say for all to read and review:
>
>And at the same time, I think the whole
>'paraphrase' controversy to have been essentially a red herring, and
>similarly all the talk about 'disturbances' etc. to be basically
>irrelevant; I do think that the simile has to do with tempest as storm,
Slow down here. It has not been shown that "they came to Lammoth as a tempest
of fire" is a simile. If they were in full flame and flying, they were pretty
much a "tempest of fire".
A simile is a figure of speech which expresses a resemblance between two things
which are normally different.
defau...@domain.com
> On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 22:27:22 -0700, in article
> defau...@domain.com resolved to say for all to read and review:
> >
> >This is another note on elements of MM's Balrog Wings FAQ.
> >Michael Martinez wrote:
> >(snip lots)
> >
> >> 8) Did Balrogs fly?
> >>
> >> Not in the 1916 story "The Fall of Gondolin". However, in a
> >> passage of "Quenta Silmarillion" which was not completely
> >> included in the published SILMARILLION, Tolkien wrote the
> following
> >> sentence:
> >>
> >> "Swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over
> >> Hithlum, and they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire."
> >>
> >> To date, all attempts to show that this passage can mean
> something
> >> other than that the Balrogs were flying have been unsuccessful.
>
> >
> >I am not at all certain I agree with this, but my demonstration is a
> new
> >one and, I think, somewhat different from previous ones in at least
> one
> >key aspect.
>
> What exactly do you disagree with? There have been no successful
> attempts (as
> of the writing of the FAQ) to show the passage can mean something
> else.
>
Sorry, I was unclear. I disagree with the statement that there have
been no successful attempts to show the passage can mean something
else. That is a mere statement of opinion, however, and I would not
want to get into delving into deja news to evaluate such attempts. I
make no claim to having established anything with regard to this
belief.The demonstration I claimed, however, was meant only to be
relative to your FAQ statements about the final phrase, to wit:
> but their arrival in Lammoth indicates they
> >> came out of the sky (as a "storm of fire"). "Tempest" can mean
> >> something other than "storm", most notably "tumult", but a tumult
> is a great
> >> noise or confusion, and the sentence makes no sense if you
> substitute
> >> "tumult" (or great noise) for "tempest".
>
My piece of discussion was meant only to deal with this element. I
suggest that the quotations I found are, in fact, relevant to this
element as they establish not only that such similes can be used for
things that do not come out of the sky, but that Tolkien used such
similes in such a fashion. I'm not saying it's a magic bullet for the
entire passage, which is why in my original post I included the
section:"Of course I agree with MM's statement in his more general
discussions of
the issue that an argument should be built on the whole, not just one
smidge."
And, of course, I wanted to point out that I'm not trying to say
anything about 'disturbances' or whatnot, which is why I said:
> >I would not argue here that "tempest" means anything other than
> >"storm".
Returning to the main point of your post,
> He is using "storm" here to indicate the fury of their passage,
> but because they are men -- and we know already that men do not fly --
> there is
> no reason for the reader to think that Tolkien means these men are
> flying.
> There is nothing else in the sentence that might indicate flight.
> With the
> Hithlum passage, there are four indicators of flight which, when taken
> together,
> mean only one thing:
>
> "swiftly they arose" + "passed over Hithlum" + "with winged speed" +
> "came to
> Lammoth as a tempest of fire" = flying Balrogs.
>
Well, I will air out my more general thesis. I owe debts to plenty of
people whose posts I have read on this--most of this can't be taken as
my own ideas.
Your position, as I understand it, is that in the passage taken as a
whole, a number of elements perhaps only suggestive taken individually
sum up to a conclusive whole. Further, I think you would say that even
the weaker elements in the grouping take on added suggestiveness given
the presence of the others. That’s just my take, and you may of course
feel free to correct me here.
It seems to me that this doesn't actually make it invalid to discuss
to what extent, if any, individual elements are suggestive of flight. I
mean, presumably if all four were fairly strong indicators of flight the
case for the sentence as a whole meaning flight for sure would be
stronger than if each were individually very weak as a flight
indicator. At some point, if one saw each of the four as individually
only a very weak suggestion of anything flightlike, one would have to
conclude that the sentence as a whole became ambiguous. At the bottom
end of the potential range, if each of the four elements contained no
suggestion of flight at all, the combination wouldn't give any
indication of flight either.
There's also room for talking about general issues of tone and so
forth, but in the end, only if one has an opinion about how strong or
otherwise the suggestions of flight are in those individual bits can one
arrive at a decision about how strong one feels the suggestion of flight
is in the whole passage. Otherwise you’re just saying vaguely, well, I
think the whole passage says they do/don’t/may fly and someone else can
rip you to shreds. So I will be trying to deal with the whole passage,
but I will also be looking at the bits individually, then trying to
relate them. I can’t really see any other sensible way of doing things.
All that said, the passage does not persuade me at all that the Balrogs
described in the passage were flying. Individually and severally, I
find the pieces of the passage not particularly indicative of flight.
First I would like to note that this is elevated, poetic language. The
passage occurs in a section which is vastly different in style from,
say, the Hobbit, and even from most of LOTR. There are bits of LOTR
with such style, mostly in the more impersonal bits of the battle scenes
when the events are described more from a historical than a novelistic
perspective (y’know, where he says things like ‘and it was said in after
days . . .’ and so forth). It is very formal, “high”, stylized,
archaic, etc. Thus, we expect poetical sorts of constructions. So,
saying things a bit extravagantly is not unexpected. Furthermore, the
stylistic unity of the passage, in that a group of images all trend in
the same general direction, does not say to me anything except that
Tolkien was a good poet and gave the passage stylistic unity.
Moving to the actual passage and its pieces, the first indicator
people refer to is that the Balrogs “arose”. So? In that kind of
language, everyone arises. You arise at break of day, it’s the standard
usage for getting up when you’re talking poetically. This one on its
own would be completely unworthy of comment. If the remainder of the
passage is strongly suggestive, then sure, it can go along with the
rest--but on its own it would suggest nothing.
So, then they “passed over”. Well, the passed part is obviously
standard. It’s one of Tolkien’s favourite words to use for anyone going
anywhere, especially if you’re a little distanced from the action. So,
what are the possibilities? I can think of passed through, passed
across, passed under, passed over, passed by. Passed under and passed
by don’t seem to apply. That leaves three possible constructions with
passed. So if passed over is used at all for things that aren’t flying,
the chance that’s the one he’d use in any given case is about one in
three. Well, we know that there are references to passing over the sea,
using ships. The ships aren’t flying. I bet there’s more.
Given that “passed over” is an option at all, let’s look at other
possibilities. Well, passed through seems to me to imply a bit more
involvement than he’d be looking for in this passage. Passed across is
a possibility, but it seems a little clumsy to me--it’s not wrong, but
the usage would be questionable, I think. I think passed over is really
the best choice available whether the Balrogs fly or not. OK, so passed
over isn’t particularly persuasive to me.
“with winged speed” is a bit more contentious. It does mention wings,
and hence is an overt example of flying-type imagery. Personally, I
agree with the people who say that the grammar clearly is using “winged”
as a modifier to speed, thus meaning that they went as fast as winged
things. There isn’t, to my mind, much point in saying they go as fast
as flying things if they are, in fact, flying things. So it seems to me
that if they really did fly you wouldn’t say they passed with winged
speed. You’d say they flew, and you might throw some modifiers onto
that. Nonetheless, this phrase does hold the suggestion of flying-ness;
on its own, however, it would strike me as insufficient.
“as a tempest of fire”. Well, of course they’re fiery, so the real
issue is “as a tempest”. This has often seemed the strongest portion of
the passage in terms of suggesting flight. You have compared it with
references to the onslaught of dragons, powerful fiery things that fly,
which is fair enough as far as it goes. However, the phrase does not
seem to me to be at all related to issues of flight. It looks to me, as
I said, like a poetic commonplace, almost a deliberate formula. It is
at this point that my argument with respect to other occasions Tolkien
used very similar formulas in circumstances of similar elevation of
language, clearly referring to non-flying beings, becomes relevant. For
Tolkien this doesn't seem to have been a simile particularly connected
with flight.
Taken together, the entire passage seems to me to describe Balrogs
coming really fast and forcefully, described in a poetic manner which is
internally consistent, and consistent with both fairly normal usage for
elevated, somewhat archaic prose in general and with Tolkien’s usage in
particular. The passage does not seem to me to particularly suggest
flight. The one bit which is closest on the surface to some suggestion
of flight, the “winged speed” bit, seems to me be a construction that
actively suggests (although not beyond any doubt) that actual flight was
not involved. If I found “winged speed” and “like a tempest” both
somewhat persuasive, I might accept the argument that between them and
the other bits there was a strong indication of flight. But I find the
“like a tempest” bit completely unpersuasive, leaving in my mind only
one lone passage that might invite a flight-oriented interpretation--and
even that one is an interpretation that, to me, hinges on incorrect
grammar of a sort I would not expect to see in Tolkien (in authorial
voice, at least--dialogue is another matter). Given my readings as to
the primary content of all the slices of the passage, I cannot go with
the argument that they add up to flight taken together. I would
consider the passage ambiguous at best, but to me it doesn't actually
feel ambiguous--I quite simply would not naturally read it as involving
flight unless perhaps I already knew that the beings in question flew.
There have been some arguments made from the perspective of
practicality--for e.g., if they weren't flying, how did they get there
in time? The passages seems to me to be essentially mythic; it's not
narrated as novel, or even history. As such, issues of practicality
aren't in my opinion relevant.
As a sidelight, I would like to talk about the additional narrative
burden involved in introducing something new to the reader. This is a
point that gains significance only for those people who take the passage
as ambiguous--so in a sense it is irrelevant both to you, since you see
the passage as an unambiguous statement of flight, and to me, since I
basically take it as unambiguously lacking such statement. But I
understand that many see the passage as ambiguous, and this paragraph is
intended for their consideration. This passage as I understand it was
intended as a portion of the Silmarillion. The Silm in turn was
envisioned as a stand-alone work--people were supposed to be able to
read and understand it without having read LOTR, yes? So, then, even if
we take the LOTR balrog as being winged in a manner which suggests the
idea of flight (Not that I'm saying anyone has such an opinion, but even
if that were the case), in the Silm this passage would be the first time
the reader was introduced to the idea that Balrogs flew. Balrogs had
featured in the story before, but never defined as flyers. OK, so now
the author wants to bring in for the reader the idea that they flew.
This seems like something you'd need to make clearer than you would a
reference to them flying after the reader already knew that they flew.
So it seems to me that, if the passage is ambiguous, that suggests it is
unlikely as something a careful writer would use as the introduction of
a new idea--especially one that is never reinforced later. I consider
Tolkien to be a very careful writer. So if you take it as, in itself,
ambiguous, you might want to consider whether such an ambiguous passage
makes sense as Tolkien's introduction of the idea of Balrogs as flyers,
and whether it doesn't make more sense simply as poetic, elevated
language.
My general conclusion, then, is that the passage does not
particularly suggest flight. If each element of the four individually
is just a piece of imagery or simile, I am not persuaded that the fact
of stylistic unity moves them into the realm of the literal. If all of
them were very strongly associated with flight, to the point that usage
of them otherwise would be rare or surprising, then I might be willing
to accept the argument that taken together they can be considered
literal. However, I do not feel that this is the case. Of the four, at
least two ("arose" and "passed over") would not, on their own, be
remotely suggestive of flight but are instead quite standard general
usage for the sort of elevated language we are dealing with. I feel
"winged speed", while it does mention wings, if anything suggests a
comparison to flight which would be unnecessary/inappropriate if actual
flight were involved. And, finally, I find that "like a tempest" is a
simile of a sort that Tolkien used more than once referring to
non-flying things; stylistically, it seems to me a formulaic image,
deliberately used to heighten the feel of epic and myth.
Whew! Well, so much for that. My education, if it did nothing else,
seems to have hooked the essay form into my soul with claws of steel.
Gruesome thought.
Rufus Polson
"I told the judge when he sentenced me/ This is my finest hour
I'd kill those farmers again/just to save one more cauliflower!"
--Arrogant Worms, 'Carrot juice is murder'
defau...@domain.com
> Why would you think the characters would not call it a truncheon? Are
> you not
> aware that an obsolete meaning for "truncheon" is "the shaft of a
> spear"?
Yer kidding! No, I had no idea. I understood it to mean a baton of the
sort intended for whacking people upside the head, like a nightstick.
I've seen it used that way many times, but never heard of the other.
Well, that certainly does put a different complexion on things.
Rufus Polson
Michael Martinez
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 22:18:29 -0700, in article <3792B523...@domain.com>,
defau...@domain.com resolved to say for all to read and review:
>
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>> What exactly do you disagree with? There have been no successful
>> attempts (as of the writing of the FAQ) to show the passage can mean
>> something else.
>>
>
>Sorry, I was unclear. I disagree with the statement that there have
>been no successful attempts to show the passage can mean something
>else.
So point one out. If you cannot, it's a statement of fact.
>> >> but their arrival in Lammoth indicates they
>> >> came out of the sky (as a "storm of fire"). "Tempest" can mean
>> >> something other than "storm", most notably "tumult", but a tumult
>> >> is a great noise or confusion, and the sentence makes no sense if
>> >> you substitute "tumult" (or great noise) for "tempest".
>
>My piece of discussion was meant only to deal with this element. I
>suggest that the quotations I found are, in fact, relevant to this
>element as they establish not only that such similes can be used for
>things that do not come out of the sky, but that Tolkien used such
>similes in such a fashion.
Sorry -- but I never saw any sensible argument which showed that "they came to
Lammoth as a great noise of fire" would make sense. The point stands if that's
all you have to offer.
>> He is using "storm" here to indicate the fury of their passage,
>> but because they are men -- and we know already that men do not fly --
>> there is no reason for the reader to think that Tolkien means these
>> men are flying. There is nothing else in the sentence that might indicate
>> flight. With the Hithlum passage, there are four indicators of flight which,
>> when taken together, mean only one thing:
>>
>> "swiftly they arose" + "passed over Hithlum" + "with winged speed" +
>> "came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire" = flying Balrogs.
>>
>
>Well, I will air out my more general thesis. I owe debts to plenty of
>people whose posts I have read on this--most of this can't be taken as
>my own ideas.
>Your position, as I understand it, is that in the passage taken as a
>whole, a number of elements perhaps only suggestive taken individually
>sum up to a conclusive whole. Further, I think you would say that even
>the weaker elements in the grouping take on added suggestiveness given
>the presence of the others. That’s just my take, and you may of course
>feel free to correct me here.
> It seems to me that this doesn't actually make it invalid to discuss
>to what extent, if any, individual elements are suggestive of flight.
What invalidates other meanings for the individual elements is the act of
putting them together as a whole. Just try it.
> Moving to the actual passage and its pieces, the first indicator
>people refer to is that the Balrogs “arose”. So? In that kind of
>language, everyone arises. You arise at break of day, it’s the standard
>usage for getting up when you’re talking poetically. This one on its
>own would be completely unworthy of comment. If the remainder of the
>passage is strongly suggestive, then sure, it can go along with the
>rest--but on its own it would suggest nothing.
> “with winged speed” is a bit more contentious. It does mention wings,
>and hence is an overt example of flying-type imagery. Personally, I
>agree with the people who say that the grammar clearly is using “winged”
>as a modifier to speed, thus meaning that they went as fast as winged
>things. There isn’t, to my mind, much point in saying they go as fast
>as flying things if they are, in fact, flying things...
But that's not necessarily what the phrase means. You (and the other
anti-flying wingers before you) are disregarding the literal sense of the phrase
-- that they were moving fast by wing. There is no textual (or logical) reason
for ignoring this meaning of the phrase. Personal preferences in how you read
the passage won't determine whether the Balrogs were winged or flying.
>...So it seems to me that if they really did fly you wouldn’t say they passed
>with winged speed...
Well, flying things can wing their way speedily overhead, so there is no reason
to say they wouldn't pass with winged speed.
>...You’d say they flew, and you might throw some modifiers onto
>that.
Here you're falling into one of the common pitfalls of the "no wings, no flying"
argument. It's not what YOU or I would say (and I probably would not just say
they flew), it's what J.R.R. Tolkien would say.
>...Nonetheless, this phrase does hold the suggestion of flying-ness;
>on its own, however, it would strike me as insufficient.
> “as a tempest of fire”. Well, of course they’re fiery, so the real
>issue is “as a tempest”. This has often seemed the strongest portion of
>the passage in terms of suggesting flight. You have compared it with
>references to the onslaught of dragons, powerful fiery things that fly,
>which is fair enough as far as it goes.
Specifically, I have pointed out that Tolkien used the phrase to describe the
onslought of the dragons:
...and do sudden and ruinous was the onset of that dreadful fleet that the
host of the Valar was driven back, for the coming of the dragons was with
great thunder, and lightning, and a tempest of fire.
(From "Of the Voyage of Earendil..." in THE SILMARILLION)
>...However, the phrase does not seem to me to be at all related to issues of
>flight.
Conveniently not. However, it should indicate even to someone who might wish to
argue that the winged, flying dragons were neither winged nor flying that there
was a rain of fire. The imagery of the words preceding the phrase includes
thunder and lightning.
>...It looks to me, as I said, like a poetic commonplace, almost a deliberate
>formula...
Tolkien is not very formulaic, however, and his prose is hardly commonplace.
You'll not find much in the literature which matches his idiom and style.
>...It is at this point that my argument with respect to other occasions Tolkien
>used very similar formulas in circumstances of similar elevation of
>language, clearly referring to non-flying beings, becomes relevant. For
>Tolkien this doesn't seem to have been a simile particularly connected
>with flight.
You need to show that. So far, we can see that the winged, flying dragons which
issued from Angband came on like a storm of fire. We know they were winged
because there is a passage previous to the one above which states so (to
distinguish them from the wingless, flightless dragons which had appeared
earlier in the Age -- Balrogs were not divided into two such classes, so no such
textual distinction is required). Hence, we can only see that "tempest of fire"
pertains to flying, firey creatures (such as dragons and Balrogs).
> Taken together, the entire passage seems to me to describe Balrogs
>coming really fast and forcefully, described in a poetic manner which is
>internally consistent, and consistent with both fairly normal usage for
>elevated, somewhat archaic prose in general and with Tolkien’s usage in
>particular.
The problem here is that you have not actually tested your combinations. Just
rewrite the sentence so that it is not "poetic" and you'll see how your argument
fails. The language may or may not be poetic, but it MUST have meaning and
coherence. Otherwise it is a pointless distraction.
There is nothing mystical about the fact that Balrogs got around Middle-earth.
The narrative in THE SILMARILLION is essentially a historical one. It doesn't
describe the undescribable.
> As a sidelight, I would like to talk about the additional narrative
>burden involved in introducing something new to the reader. This is a
>point that gains significance only for those people who take the passage
>as ambiguous--so in a sense it is irrelevant both to you, since you see
>the passage as an unambiguous statement of flight, and to me, since I
>basically take it as unambiguously lacking such statement. But I
>understand that many see the passage as ambiguous, and this paragraph is
>intended for their consideration. This passage as I understand it was
>intended as a portion of the Silmarillion. The Silm in turn was
>envisioned as a stand-alone work--people were supposed to be able to
>read and understand it without having read LOTR, yes? So, then, even if
>we take the LOTR balrog as being winged in a manner which suggests the
>idea of flight (Not that I'm saying anyone has such an opinion, but even
>if that were the case), in the Silm this passage would be the first time
>the reader was introduced to the idea that Balrogs flew...
No, not necessarily. The history of THE SILMARILLION is long and complex, and
Tolkien rewrote some of the stories several times.
>...Balrogs had featured in the story before, but never defined as flyers.
>OK, so now the author wants to bring in for the reader the idea that they flew.
>This seems like something you'd need to make clearer than you would a
>reference to them flying after the reader already knew that they flew.
But you're not looking at WHEN the Hithlum passage was written. It was written
after THE LORD OF THE RINGS -- after Tolkien had decided to put wings on the
Balrogs. In seeking for reasons to disregard the obvious, you're overlooking
way too much information.
> My general conclusion, then, is that the passage does not
>particularly suggest flight. If each element of the four individually
>is just a piece of imagery or simile, I am not persuaded that the fact
>of stylistic unity moves them into the realm of the literal...
Do you understand what simile is? I'm getting the impression that you do not.
I foresee another lengthy discussion of simile and metaphor looming on the
horizon....
>...If all of them were very strongly associated with flight, to the point that
>usage of them otherwise would be rare or surprising, then I might be willing
>to accept the argument that taken together they can be considered
>literal. However, I do not feel that this is the case. Of the four, at
>least two ("arose" and "passed over") would not, on their own, be
>remotely suggestive of flight...
This is incorrect. Both "arose" and "passed over" strongly suggest flight.
They also suggest other things (by themselves), although the text does not say
(or suggest) the Balrogs were sleeping, so the "rising at dawn" sort of thing is
pretty much excluded from the list of reasonable meanigs.
>...but are instead quite standard general usage for the sort of elevated
>language we are dealing with. I feel "winged speed", while it does mention
>wings, if anything suggests a comparison to flight which would be
>unnecessary/inappropriate if actual flight were involved. And, finally, I find
>that "like a tempest" is a simile of a sort that Tolkien used more than once
>referring to non-flying things;
It was "as a tempest", and you have not shown that it is, in fact, a simile.
Basically, you've done a magngificent job of convincing yourself the Balrogs
didn't fly (or have wings, I suppose), but you're argument is not coherent.
You've made many assumptions, you've not supported your conclusions with
relevant citations and logic, and you have not really tried to show how the
sentence CAN work without meaning that the Balrogs didn't fly.
Just try doing this last part. Don't go on and on about "poetic language".
Just rewrite the sentence so it works as you think it should. That will bring
and end to the debate, I assure you, if you can do it. But so far, no one HAS
been able to do it. And many people have tried (including me).
Steuard Jensen
[FAQ]> 8) Did Balrogs fly?
[FAQ]>
[FAQ]> Not in the 1916 story "The Fall of Gondolin". However, in a
[FAQ]> passage of "Quenta Silmarillion" which was not completely
[FAQ]> included in the published SILMARILLION, Tolkien wrote the
[FAQ]> following sentence: "Swiftly they arose, and they passed with
[FAQ]> winged speed over Hithlum, and they came to Lammoth as a tempest
[FAQ]> of fire." To date, all attempts to show that this passage can
[FAQ]> mean something other than that the Balrogs were flying have been
[FAQ]> unsuccessful.
> ...so far this thread is the first time anyone has expressed any
> disagreement with this part of the FAQ and, quite frankly, your
> recent flaming in the group has made it clear you seem determined to
> disagree with me on any point possible.
I've been remiss, then. :) I, at least, am of the opinion that the
passage in question can be read either as indicating that the Balrogs
were flying or as indicating great speed by repeated reference to
flight. I also expressed that opinion in my summary, but of course
that's in this same thread; I think I've avoid direct confrontation
with your FAQ for a while.
For the record, in previous incarnations of this debate, I have cited
secondary definitions of both "tempest" and "tumult" that explicitly
refer to things other than violent weather and noisy crowds,
respectively, and which seem to me to give validity to the "just an
image" interpretation. (Note that Shakespere's title _The Tempest_
does, in fact, have a double meaning.) I do not believe that any
rewriting or rewording is necessary to read this passage as not
indicative of literal flight; Tolkien's words allow that meaning
clearly enough for me.
At any rate, I don't have much to say here on the issue that I haven't
said in previous debates on the topic (see deja.com if interested).
Unless I see something fundamentally new (or fundamentally
misinterpreting one of my posts), I'm afraid I don't have time to stay
involved in this interesting discussion. (I don't have time for this
post, either, but that's beside the point. :) )
Steuard Jensen
Steuard Jensen
> On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:10:42 -0700, in article
> review:
> >
> >Well, looking over the
> >FAQ list, it seems to me that the answers to FAQs numbers 3 and 7 contradict
> >each other, but in my mind "wings" are material things, whereas
> >"shadow-stuff wings" belong to the realm of metaphor.
>
> feel is the contradiction, if you don't mind my asking?
As far as I can tell, he's referring to the same linguistic
misunderstanding that caused so much debate in the first place: some
of us naturally think of the word "wings" in this context as implying
"material things", as Carl put it, and require some small effort to
interpret the word more generally. Others (including you, I believe)
are naturally inclined to use "wings" more freely, and require some
small effort to understand how the first group could limit the
language so much.
It's just a matter of the way each of us learned to use the word (and
words in general). At any rate, I believe that the contradiction
(like much of the debate on the topic over time!) is merely a matter
of terminology.
If you'd accept a recommendation for your FAQ, I think that more
people would accept it if your answer to the question "Did Balrogs
have wings?" began with the phrase "It depends on your use of the word
`wings'" and perhaps acknowledged, however briefly, that some people
seem not to like using the word "wings" in this context. It wouldn't
change the real content of the FAQ one bit, but it would make a
substantial fraction of the group more comfortable with the document,
I think.
Steuard Jensen
dara...@my-deja.com
Dear Micheal,
Read your Balrog essay. It was really good. They do have a typo in
the heading over the Gondolin section. The word 'Attach' is used,
instead of 'Attacks' as I believe you meant.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
RLV
>
> On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 23:14:05 +0200, in article <379243...@xxxx.xxx>, RLV
> >
<again the Hithlum passage>
> >> > To date, all attempts to show that this passage can mean something
> >> > other than that the Balrogs were flying have been unsuccessful.
> >
> >Rufus, this is just MM's opinion.
>
> You say that as if it were true.
>
> >Many people will probably disagree.
>
> Given MY reputation?
>
> Maybe they'll all send their disagreement in email to
> someone, but so far this thread is the first time anyone has expressed any
> disagreement with this part of the FAQ
It all starts with the FAQ? Do you really intend to say that the Hithlum
passage has never been debated before? You really think you are the
center of the NG, don't you?
>and, quite frankly, your recent flaming
> in the group has made it clear you seem determined to disagree with me on any
> point possible.
You keep your style: if anybody says something you can't refute, you
insult and flame. Your first insult is always calling the other person a
flamer, and then proceed to put the blame on him for all your insults
and lies. A good tactic when first seen, but it is an old trick by now.
> Of course now, if you'd like to cite an article where someone has actually shown
> that the passage can mean something else, please feel free. There's always the
> chance such an effort passed by me while I was offline or something.
Or while you were in your Disneyland Gondor full of Egyptians wearing
black boots.
R.L.V.
~~#~~
RLV
>
> On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 16:45:20 -0700, in article <37926710...@domain.com>,
> defau...@domain.com resolved to say for all to read and review:
> >And at the same time, I think the whole
> >'paraphrase' controversy to have been essentially a red herring, and
> >similarly all the talk about 'disturbances' etc. to be basically
> >irrelevant; I do think that the simile has to do with tempest as storm,
>
> Slow down here. It has not been shown that "they came to Lammoth as a tempest
> of fire" is a simile. If they were in full flame and flying, they were pretty
Let's all slow down.
Tempest:
1. a violent windy storm:
2. violent agitation or tumult.
Storm: a violent disturbance of the atmosphere with strong winds and
usually with thunder and rain or snow.
If the word tempest is "a violent windy storm" it is obvioulsy a simile.
Or do you mean it was raining Balrogs?
If the word tempest is "violent agitation or tumult", it does not imply
flight.
> A simile is a figure of speech which expresses a resemblance between two things
> which are normally different.
Precisely. If this is a simile (the storm), it may indicate flying
Balrogs or may not. If it is not a simile (the tumult), then it does not
imply flying in any way.
R.L.V.
~~#~~
RLV
>
> RLV wrote:
>
> > defau...@domain.com wrote:
> > As you seem to be new to me (I don't remember seeing your sig before),
> > you might not know about previous discussions of this matter.
> >
> > BTW, if you really are new here, welcome. :-)
>
> Thanks. I've been lurking for a long time (2 yrs + off and on), but
> have only posted a few things before. I have seen a good bit of
> argument on the Hithlum passage,
You have better sight that MM. He has just said me that this point of
the FAQ had never been discussed.
>but for purposes of introducing a new
> point (with genuine quotations!) I was willing to avoid disputing issues
> not directly relevant to it. And at the same time, I think the whole
> 'paraphrase' controversy to have been essentially a red herring, and
> similarly all the talk about 'disturbances' etc. to be basically
> irrelevant; I do think that the simile has to do with tempest as storm,
> I just happen to think that treating a simile in overliteral terms is an
> error, especially when dealing with elevated language. As such, I
> avoided bringing it all up.
I agree with you on the dangers of fanatic literalism. Some people here
seem to have some sort of anti-simile fixation. It is a possible
interpretation, of course, but it robs the text of much of its richness
of meaning.
> Nice to see that at least one regular poster isn't just skipping the
> whole thread because of the dreaded 'B' word! :-)
Not afraid of mighty Balrogs, me. I'm already quite accustomed to being
flamed, so, what can Balrogs do to me ;-)
BTW, I'm not just a regular poster. I am a certified "unprovoked flamer"
(tm), nonetheless.
> Rufus Polson
> "We're the second largest country upon this planet earth
> And if Russia keeps on shrinking, then soon we'll be first! (as long as
> we keep Quebec)"
> --Arrogant Worms, 'Canada's really big'; should be sung with intense
> mock patriotism.
Hummm. Could you expand on the quote in your sig, please?
R.L.V.
~~#~~
"Call me mead-tongue"
Michael Martinez
sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu resolved to say for all to read and review:
>
>Quoth Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org>:
>> ...so far this thread is the first time anyone has expressed any
>> disagreement with this part of the FAQ and, quite frankly, your
>> recent flaming in the group has made it clear you seem determined to
>> disagree with me on any point possible.
>
>passage in question can be read either as indicating that the Balrogs
>were flying or as indicating great speed by repeated reference to
>flight. I also expressed that opinion in my summary, but of course
>that's in this same thread; I think I've avoid direct confrontation
>with your FAQ for a while.
Opinions are fine. Everyone is entitled to one. But the statement that caused
contention was that no one had yet shown the sentence could mean anything else.
>For the record, in previous incarnations of this debate, I have cited
>secondary definitions of both "tempest" and "tumult" that explicitly
>refer to things other than violent weather and noisy crowds,
>respectively, and which seem to me to give validity to the "just an
>image" interpretation. (Note that Shakespere's title _The Tempest_
>does, in fact, have a double meaning.) I do not believe that any
>rewriting or rewording is necessary to read this passage as not
>indicative of literal flight; Tolkien's words allow that meaning
>clearly enough for me.
Searching for "tempest" and "tumult" in articles posted by you (from the
sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu account) since January 1, I found three articles.
ON May 2 you wrote:
From: sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen)
Subject: Re: REPOST: Re: Okay, Rewrite the Hithlum Passage (was Re: The
Forbidden Thread Rears Its Ugly Head)
Date: 02 May 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <FB4BJ...@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: ne...@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: howard-nfs.uchicago.edu
References: <7f9d0g$1vs...@Mindspring.mindspring.com>
<7gbhf9$29...@drn.newsguy.com> <372fb0c5...@news.erols.com>
<lMRW2.26$eV.150...@news2.usenetserver.com>
Organization: The University of Chicago
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts.books.tolkien
Quoth Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez):
> In article <372fb0c5...@news.erols.com>, jasona...@remove.erols.com
(Jason Atkinson) wrote:
> >So, using strictly dictionary substitutes:
> >
> >Swiftly they moved upward, and the moved with rapid speed from one
> >side of the Hithlum to another, and they came to Lammoth as a great
> >tumult of fire.
>
> Nope. "passed [with winged speed] over Hithlum" is not the same as
> "moved [with rapid speed] from one side of Hithlum to another".
> They began their journey OUTSIDE of Hithlum and ended it OUTSIDE of
> Hithlum. Your substitution implies the movement occurred WITHIN
> Hithlum, and that is not the case.
Frankly, I find this objection as stated a bit silly. Once you
explicitly explain that it's the mountains that are bothering you, it
makes more sense. On the other hand, arguing that there is no good
land route for the Balrogs to take is a very different sort of
argument than arguing that the wording of this passage requires
flight. One that might be nice to explore, but a very different
argument nonetheless.
> Also, a "tumult of fire" makes no sense. A "tumult" is a noisy
> commotion, a loud and confused noise. The Balrogs could not have
> arrived as "a noise of fire".
According to my dictionary, definition 2 of "tumult" is "a turbulent
uprising: RIOT", and 3b is "a violent outburst". Considering the fact
that accrording to the dictionary, "tempest" can mean "tumult", I
doubt that only noise was implied. Tempests are more than noisy.
They are turbulent and violent.
If your dictionary does not include these alternate readings of the
word "tumult", I recommend finding a better one; they are in fairly
common usage. If your dictionary does include them, then I can't for
the life of me understand why you chose to ignore them when replying
to this and similar suggestions, as they were clearly the definitions
implied. _Did_ you have any particular reason?
These alternatives failed the test. We must substitute for "tempest", not for
"tumult", in the Hithlum passage. Since the original substitution of "tumult"
for tempest failed, we cannot then extend the test to include any meaning for
"tumult" which cannot be related back to the original word, "tempest".
The second article was posted on May 3 and was basically a rebuttal of my
rebuttal which did not attempt to apply the words to the test (as the thread's
subject line clearly indicated was requested). The third article was the one to
which I am presently responding.
>At any rate, I don't have much to say here on the issue that I haven't
>said in previous debates on the topic (see deja.com if interested).
>Unless I see something fundamentally new (or fundamentally
>misinterpreting one of my posts), I'm afraid I don't have time to stay
>involved in this interesting discussion. (I don't have time for this
>post, either, but that's beside the point. :) )
Well, I'm still waiting for someone to rewrite the sentence in such a fashion
that it works, makes sense, and doesn't alter the basic meaning of "swiftly they
arose", "passed over Hithlum with winged speed", and "came to Lammoth as a
tempest of fire" when all are taken together.
I shall not on the basis of unsupported objections change the FAQ.
Michael Martinez
>words in general). At any rate, I believe that the contradiction
>(like much of the debate on the topic over time!) is merely a matter
>of terminology.
>
>If you'd accept a recommendation for your FAQ, I think that more
>people would accept it if your answer to the question "Did Balrogs
>have wings?" began with the phrase "It depends on your use of the word
>`wings'" and perhaps acknowledged, however briefly, that some people
>seem not to like using the word "wings" in this context. It wouldn't
>change the real content of the FAQ one bit, but it would make a
>substantial fraction of the group more comfortable with the document,
>I think.
I'll give it some thought, but as long as people utilize their non-use of the
word "wings" to argue that Tolkien didn't mean it that way, I'm reluctant to go
with any wording which seems to state that there were no wings. There were, in
fact, wings. They just don't appear to have been membraneous wings (or
feathery, or snow, or whatever).
If I make a change to that part of the FAQ, however, it will not start out with
"it depends on your use of the word 'wings'". That is a fallacy of basing an
argument on the reader's perception. The author doesn't necessarily use the
word the way the reader would. The author is at fault if the reader doesn't
understand the passage, but the reader is not justified in saying, "Well, that's
the only way *I* understand it so that's what it really means." They remain the
author's words, however vague they may seem to some or all of the readers.
Michael Martinez
dara...@my-deja.com resolved to say for all to read and review:
>
>
>
>
> Dear Micheal,
>
> Read your Balrog essay. It was really good. They do have a typo in
>the heading over the Gondolin section. The word 'Attach' is used,
>instead of 'Attacks' as I believe you meant.
Thanks. I'm CCing Rick on this.
Michael Martinez
resolved to say for all to read and review:
>
>>
>>On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 16:45:20 -0700, in article <37926710...@domain.com>,
>> >And at the same time, I think the whole
>> >'paraphrase' controversy to have been essentially a red herring, and
>> >similarly all the talk about 'disturbances' etc. to be basically
>> >irrelevant; I do think that the simile has to do with tempest as storm,
>>
>> tempest of fire" is a simile. If they were in full flame and flying, they
>> were pretty much a "tempest of fire".
>
>Let's all slow down.
<BIG sigh>
>Tempest:
>1. a violent windy storm:
>2. violent agitation or tumult.
>
>Storm: a violent disturbance of the atmosphere with strong winds and
>usually with thunder and rain or snow.
>
>If the word tempest is "a violent windy storm" it is obvioulsy a simile.
>Or do you mean it was raining Balrogs?
You ARE aware that fire causes air to expand and move away from the source,
aren't you? If the Balrogs were aflame (or if the wings were substantial enough
to affect the air, or both) then indeed their arrival would be stormlike, and
not a simile at all.
Show that the Balrogs were not aflame or flying. The "tempest of fire" pretty
much indicates that there was fire involved in their arrival. What were they
doing, carrying torches?
"raining Balrogs"? That's not altogether unrealistic if firey Balrogs came out
of the sky, now is it?
>If the word tempest is "violent agitation or tumult", it does not imply
>flight.
Nor would it work in that sentence.
>> A simile is a figure of speech which expresses a resemblance between two
>> things which are normally different.
>
>Precisely. If this is a simile (the storm), it may indicate flying
>Balrogs or may not. If it is not a simile (the tumult), then it does not
>imply flying in any way.
No, if it's a simile, it CANNOT indicate flying Balrogs. A simile would have to
indicate Balrogs which seemed to be flying but which were not.
Show that it's a simile.
Michael Martinez
resolved to say for all to read and review:
>
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>>
>> resolved to say for all to read and review:
>> >
>
><again the Hithlum passage>
>> >> > To date, all attempts to show that this passage can mean something
>> >> > other than that the Balrogs were flying have been unsuccessful.
>> >
>> >Rufus, this is just MM's opinion.
>>
>> You say that as if it were true.
>>
>> >Many people will probably disagree.
>>
>> Given MY reputation?
>>
>> Maybe they'll all send their disagreement in email to
>> disagreement with this part of the FAQ
>
If you're going to reconstruct everything I say in order to tilt at straw men
once again, expect to be ignored once again.
Conrad Dunkerson
news:7mtm6s$2q...@drn.newsguy.com...
> On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 23:14:05 +0200, in article
<379243...@xxxx.xxx>, RLV wrote;
>>Rufus, this is just MM's opinion.
> You say that as if it were true.
Funny how people sometimes do state the truth in a factual
seeming way. The following are opinions apparently held by
Michael Martinez... NOT facts;
Balrogs have wings
Balrogs can fly
Balrogs can shapechange
Tolkien's Elves did not have pointed ears
Celeborn's great wisdom virtually guaranteed the Ring quest
The Ring spoke on Mount Doom
The Elven and Dwarven races were generally friends
Of the 'incontestability' of the Hithlum passage;
> Maybe they'll all send their disagreement in email to
> someone, but so far this thread is the first time anyone
> has expressed any disagreement with this part of the FAQ
Ummm.... yeah. We can add this to the opinion list too.
Though the existence of DOZENS of messages on Deja on this
very subject probably makes it the most unusual of the
opinions thus far.
> Of course now, if you'd like to cite an article where
> someone has actually shown that the passage can mean
> something else, please feel free.
Again, there were many. For instance, the passage could
mean that the Balrogs took on the form of a firestorm and
'teleported' themselves directly to Hithlum... nothing in
the wording contradicts this. Indeed, it is a more
'literal' reading than the flying thing. It could also
mean that they ran very quickly and arrived with great
fury... nothing in the wording excludes this
interpretation - particularly given the many citations of
land bound creatures moving with 'winged speed' or arriving
as a 'tempest' or other such imagery. Tolkien used every
'flight' phrase in that passage to indicate something other
than flight in other places... ergo, there is no certainty
that he intended flight in this case.
Michael Martinez
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 02:12:45 GMT, in article <FF5Ct...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu resolved to say for all to read and review:
>
>Quoth Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org>:
>> I'll give it some thought, but as long as people utilize their
>> non-use of the word "wings" to argue that Tolkien didn't mean it
>> that way, I'm reluctant to go with any wording which seems to state
>> that there were no wings. There were, in fact, wings. They just
>> don't appear to have been membraneous wings (or feathery, or snow,
>> or whatever).
>
>My point is that whatever Tolkien's use of the word was, many people
>(including myself!) would not in other contexts use the word "wings"
>to describe something like the shadow surrounding the Balrog.
[snip]
But neither you nor anyone else wrote THE LORD OF THE RINGS. J.R.R. Tolkien
wrote it. He doesn't indicate the word means anything other than that the
Balrog stretched out it (possibly shadowy) wings.
My FAQ is going to summarize the concrete points, not all the opinions. There
were far too many opinions to begin with -- trying to condense them all to
something which seeks only to summarize the major points of the debate isn't
easily doable.
The questions represent the no-wings point of view (I got many of them from the
no-wings arguments).
>For what it's worth, I cannot recall a single serious "anti-wing"
>advocate who did not believe that the Balrog had "wings of
>shadow-stuff" or "a shadow shaped like wings" or something similar.
I could easily point to all the people who insisted the wings were a metaphor.
>> If I make a change to that part of the FAQ, however, it will not
>> start out with "it depends on your use of the word 'wings'". That
>> is a fallacy of basing an argument on the reader's perception. The
>> author doesn't necessarily use the word the way the reader would.
>
>I may not have been clear enough in my meaning: I didn't mean "the
>meaning of the passage depends on your use of the word 'wings'", I
>meant "the word you would normally use to describe the things around
>the Balrog may or may not be 'wings'".
That still doesn't work. Tolkien wrote the passage, Tolkien used the word
"wings". At the very least the wings were wings because they were wing-shaped.
That is at the very least. It could be that they were more than just wing
shapes (of whatever). But whether they were more than that is irrelevant. They
were wings -- that is what he called them.
Michael Martinez
sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu resolved to say for all to read and review:
>
>Quoth Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org>:
>> sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu resolved to say for all to read and review:
>> > read either as indicating that the Balrogs were flying or as
>> > indicating great speed by repeated reference to flight.
>>
>> that caused contention was that no one had yet shown the sentence
>> could mean anything else.
>
>point, I believe that the Hithlum passage can be read either way (see
>above). My evidence for this is that I have read the passage, and
>with my understanding of the English language, decided after much
>consideration that neither alternative was ruled out by its wording.
[big snip]
When I see someone rewrite the sentence successfully, I'll definitely concede
the point of ambiguity. Until then, no successful rewrite, no concession of
ambiguity. I realize that is just fuel for other fires, but that's the bottom
line.
RLV
>
> A lot of snippage has occurred.
>
> On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 22:18:29 -0700, in article <3792B523...@domain.com>,
> defau...@domain.com resolved to say for all to read and review:
> >
> >Michael Martinez wrote:
> >Sorry, I was unclear. I disagree with the statement that there have
> >been no successful attempts to show the passage can mean something
> >else.
>
> So point one out. If you cannot, it's a statement of fact.
Who decides if it was successful or not? You?
> Sorry -- but I never saw any sensible argument which showed that "they came to
> Lammoth as a great noise of fire" would make sense. The point stands if that's
> all you have to offer.
What about "tumult"? Try:
"The fiery Balrogs came quickly to Lammoth and caused a tumult".
Of course, this is an ugly sentence. That's why JRRT writes the same
poetically, and gets a beautiful paragraph. But the meaning is the same.
> But that's not necessarily what the phrase means. You (and the other
> anti-flying wingers before you) are disregarding the literal sense of the phrase
> -- that they were moving fast by wing. There is no textual (or logical) reason
> for ignoring this meaning of the phrase. Personal preferences in how you read
> the passage won't determine whether the Balrogs were winged or flying.
Literal meaning:
Winged: which has wings.
Winged speed: speed that has wings.
Literally speaking, how can a speed have wings?
> Here you're falling into one of the common pitfalls of the "no wings, no flying"
> argument. It's not what YOU or I would say (and I probably would not just say
> they flew), it's what J.R.R. Tolkien would say.
But, save oportune mediumnic connection with his ghost, we don't know
what JRRT *would* say.
> > Taken together, the entire passage seems to me to describe Balrogs
> >coming really fast and forcefully, described in a poetic manner which is
> >internally consistent, and consistent with both fairly normal usage for
> >elevated, somewhat archaic prose in general and with Tolkien’s usage in
> >particular.
>
> The problem here is that you have not actually tested your combinations. Just
> rewrite the sentence so that it is not "poetic" and you'll see how your argument
> fails. The language may or may not be poetic, but it MUST have meaning and
> coherence. Otherwise it is a pointless distraction.
"The fiery Balrogs came quickly to Lammoth and caused a tumult".
It has meaning, it has coherence. It is ugly, and that's why JRRT wrote
it differently.
It was easy.
> But you're not looking at WHEN the Hithlum passage was written. It was written
> after THE LORD OF THE RINGS -- after Tolkien had decided to put wings on the
> Balrogs. In seeking for reasons to disregard the obvious, you're overlooking
> way too much information.
The wingedness of the Balrog of Moria is also in dispute, don't you
remember?
> >...If all of them were very strongly associated with flight, to the point that
> >usage of them otherwise would be rare or surprising, then I might be willing
> >to accept the argument that taken together they can be considered
> >literal. However, I do not feel that this is the case. Of the four, at
> >least two ("arose" and "passed over") would not, on their own, be
> >remotely suggestive of flight...
>
> This is incorrect. Both "arose" and "passed over" strongly suggest flight.
> They also suggest other things (by themselves), although the text does not say
> (or suggest) the Balrogs were sleeping, so the "rising at dawn" sort of thing is
> pretty much excluded from the list of reasonable meanigs.
Arise:
1. begin to exist, originate
2. result
3. come to one's notice
4. rise, esp. from the dead.
Which one of those "strongly suggest flying"?
> Just try doing this last part. Don't go on and on about "poetic language".
> Just rewrite the sentence so it works as you think it should. That will bring
> and end to the debate, I assure you, if you can do it. But so far, no one HAS
> been able to do it. And many people have tried (including me).
"The fiery Balrogs came quickly to Lammoth and caused a tumult".
I still believe it was easy, but if nobody else had been able to do it
before, including MM himself, maybe it was not.
Steuard Jensen
> > read either as indicating that the Balrogs were flying or as
> > indicating great speed by repeated reference to flight.
>
> that caused contention was that no one had yet shown the sentence
> could mean anything else.
Er... I think we're using language differently again. To restate my
point, I believe that the Hithlum passage can be read either way (see
above). My evidence for this is that I have read the passage, and
with my understanding of the English language, decided after much
consideration that neither alternative was ruled out by its wording.
I used the word "opinion" above because the usual standards of
logical proof that I am accustomed to apply are all but impossible for
questions of natural language, which is anything but axiomatic in
structure or derivation. There is no way for me or anyone else to
"prove" that this passage has a particular meaning; language is a
slippery thing, and hard to pin down. To some degree, the meaning of
a passage is no more nor less than its meaning to the person who wrote
it. The goal of a writer, then, is to be sufficiently clear and vivid
that most readers glean a meaning from the text that is close to the
writer's own. As readers, we should do all we can to make sure we're
understanding the authors words as they were intended. We can be
quite careful about that, but it ain't _proof_ by a long stretch.
Having said that, I really don't know what "showing" you expect to
see. In the past, you have asked those who saw a "no literal flight"
interpretation to rewrite the passage in such a way that all the
meaning remained but no flight was implied. I continue to maintain
that no rewriting is necessary, because Tolkien's own words do not
unambiguously state that the Balrogs flew despite their repeated
flight-related elements. The repeated flight-related words in the
sentence form at best a consistent body of circumstantial evidence for
the claim that Balrogs flew. However, my whole point is that they are
_also_ entirely consistent with what I would expect if Tolkien wanted
to indicate the great haste and speed of the Balrogs by vividly
likening them to flying things.
> >For the record, in previous incarnations of this debate, I have cited
> >secondary definitions of both "tempest" and "tumult" that explicitly
> >refer to things other than violent weather and noisy crowds,
> >respectively [snip]
The post of mine that you kindly looked up contains relevant
definitions of "tumult", but I will go into a bit more detail here
because the context of the previous post is missing. In my
dictionary, I find the following two definitions of "tempest":
1) a violent storm, and 2) TUMULT, UPROAR.
These are the only two definitions provided. The first is clearly the
most direct reading, and certainly calls up intense imagery of flight.
However, the second is a "synonymous cross reference," meaning that
"a definition at the entry cross-referred to can be substituted as a
definition for the entry" according to the dictionary's explanatory
notes. This leads us to "tumult":
1) a) ...:COMMOTION b) a turbulent uprising:RIOT 2) HUBBUB, DIN
3) a) violent agitation of mind or feelings b) a violent outburst
I have not included the full text of 1)a), as "commotion" seems too
calm a meaning to correspond to "tempest", either in general or in the
Hithlum passage in particular. Similarly, 2) seems entirely too
gentle (and noise-specific) to be a cross-reference intended in this
case. 3)a) strikes me as too specific to be an intended cross
reference.
Thus, we are left with the following conclusion: either 1)b) or 3)b)
can be substituted as a definition for "tempest". I would point out
that _neither_ of these definitions implies flight (as "uprising" here
is compared to "riot" rather than something like "ascension").
Similar alternate definitions not implying flight are available for
all the other flight-related words in the passage, and have been
provided ad nauseum in the past. Thus, considering the passage as a
whole, we are left with a text that seems determined to describe
flight but that does not once unambiguously do so. A strange
situation, to say the least.
Some people, upon noticing this, would conclude that the only way a
clearer statement would _not_ be made in the midst of so many flight
references is if the author was intentionally avoiding one. That is,
Tolkien clearly chose these words carefully to _avoid_ stating that
the Balrogs actually flew. It is an easy step from here to conclude
that he had a reason for being so careful, and that the reason was
that the Balrogs did _not_ fly.
That is a stronger statement that I am willing to claim as true, but I
believe it to be just as well supported as the claim that the passage
clearly indicates flight. I don't feel that playing with
substitutions or rewriting the passage would make anything the
slightest bit clearer; Tolkien's words are the ones of interest, and
Tolkien's words need no modification for either chain of reasoning.
Steuard Jensen
Steuard Jensen
> I'll give it some thought, but as long as people utilize their
> non-use of the word "wings" to argue that Tolkien didn't mean it
> that way, I'm reluctant to go with any wording which seems to state
> that there were no wings. There were, in fact, wings. They just
> don't appear to have been membraneous wings (or feathery, or snow,
> or whatever).
My point is that whatever Tolkien's use of the word was, many people
(including myself!) would not in other contexts use the word "wings"
to describe something like the shadow surrounding the Balrog. The
word may well have carried different meaning for Tolkien than it does
for us, but that's the way we learned the language. Despite this
difference in language, we seem to agree on the _nature_ of the
Balrog's "wings", and it is that nature (presumably) that your FAQ
seeks to explain.
I think that your FAQ would be accepted best if it acknowledged those
differences in our personal use of language in a clear and open way.
You are more than welcome to state your own preference, and to follow
it throughout, but unless you believe that my use of language is so
wrong that it's worth arguing over (and risking great confusion!), I
think it would be best to de-emphasize the importance of word choice
and usage.
For what it's worth, I cannot recall a single serious "anti-wing"
advocate who did not believe that the Balrog had "wings of
shadow-stuff" or "a shadow shaped like wings" or something similar.
We all simply misunderstood each other's use of language, and
therefore thought the other side was being completely blind and
illogical. I doubt that acknowledging this danger in your FAQ would
_create_ a group of people who didn't believe in _any_ winglike things
around the Balrog: nobody has ever argued something so clearly against
the text that I can remember.
> If I make a change to that part of the FAQ, however, it will not
> start out with "it depends on your use of the word 'wings'". That
> is a fallacy of basing an argument on the reader's perception. The
> author doesn't necessarily use the word the way the reader would.
I may not have been clear enough in my meaning: I didn't mean "the
meaning of the passage depends on your use of the word 'wings'", I
meant "the word you would normally use to describe the things around
the Balrog may or may not be 'wings'". Your FAQ would then go on
almost exactly as it does now, explaining that there was clearly
_something_ there and what we think it was "made of". After
acknowledging that other people might prefer to use a more qualified
term (e.g. "shadow-wings" or the like), you could simply point out
that for simplicity you would adhere to your preference and use the
term "wings" throughout. The _meaning_ would be entirely unchanged,
as desired.
Steuard Jensen
P.S. As I understand them now, the "simile vs. metaphor" threads were
simply an effort to explain that Tolkien's use of the word "wings"
could have been consistent with that of "my side." An unimportant and
not particularly interesting point, as I now deem it, but never
decisively proven one way or the other.
The Arcane Chas
contemplation, Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> put finger to
keyboard and produced the following;
>When I see someone rewrite the sentence successfully, I'll definitely concede
>the point of ambiguity. Until then, no successful rewrite, no concession of
>ambiguity. I realize that is just fuel for other fires, but that's the bottom
>line.
>
Alright then, "..swiftly they arose, and passing over Hithlum they came
to Lammoth as a tempest of fire".
(Beware of the obvious trap). :-}
BTW - while looking up the "actual" quote above I noticed that Ungoliant
*also* had wings. "...she [Ungoliant] quailed and turned to flight".
<sorry>
--
Cheers,
Chas.
http://www.lindsayc.force9.co.uk (updated 15/5/99)
Arkady
> > Rufus Polson
> > "We're the second largest country upon this planet earth
> > And if Russia keeps on shrinking, then soon we'll be first! (as long as
> > we keep Quebec)"
> > --Arrogant Worms, 'Canada's really big'; should be sung with intense
> > mock patriotism.
>
> Hummm. Could you expand on the quote in your sig, please?
Yes. Russia has not 'shrunk' since 1918. Or do you mean the economy?
James Kellar
>
> In article <7n14d4$2l...@drn.newsguy.com>, but only after serious
> contemplation, Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> put finger to
> keyboard and produced the following;
> >When I see someone rewrite the sentence successfully, I'll definitely concede
> >the point of ambiguity. Until then, no successful rewrite, no concession of
> >ambiguity. I realize that is just fuel for other fires, but that's the bottom
> >line.
> >
>
> Alright then, "..swiftly they arose, and passing over Hithlum they came
> to Lammoth as a tempest of fire".
>
> (Beware of the obvious trap). :-}
>
> BTW - while looking up the "actual" quote above I noticed that Ungoliant
> *also* had wings. "...she [Ungoliant] quailed and turned to flight".
Gandalf meant when he said, "Fly, you fools!" ?
^^^
Öjevind Lång
Conrad Dunkerson hath written:
<snip>
>
>Funny how people sometimes do state the truth in a factual
>seeming way. The following are opinions apparently held by
>Michael Martinez... NOT facts;
>
>Balrogs have wings
>Balrogs can fly
>Balrogs can shapechange
>Tolkien's Elves did not have pointed ears
>Celeborn's great wisdom virtually guaranteed the Ring quest
>The Ring spoke on Mount Doom
>The Elven and Dwarven races were generally friends
To which can be added:
Middle-earth was a pre-classical world and was not in any way medieval in
character. In this statement, the term "pre-classical" is carefully left
undefined, though much is made of a quote from Tolkien saying that the
Dúnedain were "Egyptian" in some respects
Öjevind
Steuard Jensen
> sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu resolved to say for all to read and review:
> >advocate who did not believe that the Balrog had "wings of
> >shadow-stuff" or "a shadow shaped like wings" or something similar.
>
> metaphor.
Hmm. If you'll recall, I was in fact one of those. It was from that
perspective that I wrote the above: as far as I recall from their
descriptions, everyone who said "the wings are a metaphor" had
substantially the same picture of "shadow-wings" in mind as I did (and
as you did, apparently!). Once again, The Debate Was Needless. The
only thing we (as a group) disagreed on was language. I'm just
worried that your FAQ will needlessly alienate half of its audience
because of a trivial semantic point.
> At the very least the wings were wings because they were
> wing-shaped.
I think that I fully understand what you are saying here. However, it
seems to indicate that I still haven't made my point sufficiently
clear. Your statement above is not consistent with the way I (and
apparently quite a few others) use the English language: in this
context, at least, "wings" for me carries more implications than a
similarity of form. I firmly believe that my use of the language is
acceptable in this case, although I can see that yours is also
acceptable. Of such minor difficulties much confusion springs.
As it stands, your FAQ is not excluding my opinion, as my opinion is
substantially the same as your own. It's excluding my dialect, and a
rather common one at that (I don't know which of our two dialects is
the most common, but it could easily be either). If you want it to be
a "The Right Words to Use when Discussing Tolkien FAQ", then it ought
to be labeled as such.
> They were wings -- that is what [Tolkien] called them.
Again, this is simply a claim that Tolkien used the word "wings" in
the same way that you do. I certainly grant this possibility. Those
of us who use it differently have read the passage and decided that
his usage could also have been consistant with our own. Amazingly, we
all came to the same conclusion regardless! Your FAQ, by adhering to
one usage quite firmly, appears incorrect (or even self contradictory,
as one poster has already independently stated!) to someone with the
other usage who is not familliar with the distinction.
I know I'm pounding this to death, but honestly, it's entirely in an
effort to avoid needless arguments in the future. In fact, I believe
that you could even _replace_ the FAQ section about simile and
metaphor with a brief acknowledgement of peoples' different uses of
the word "wings" and come out ahead. After all, as I said above,
those who argue the "metaphor" side seem to have had almost exactly
the same beliefs on the issue as I do; making this change would not
only address the same people, it would make us accept the FAQ rather
than debate it. This is a big step forward from the current
treatment.
Steuard Jensen
rl...@my-deja.com
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 22:56:34 +0200, in article
<379391...@xxxx.xxx>, RLV
> >
> >>
> >>On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 16:45:20 -0700, in article
<37926710...@domain.com>,
<snip>
> >Tempest:
> >1. a violent windy storm:
> >2. violent agitation or tumult.
> >
> >Storm: a violent disturbance of the atmosphere with strong winds and
> >usually with thunder and rain or snow.
> >
> >If the word tempest is "a violent windy storm" it is obvioulsy a
simile.
> >Or do you mean it was raining Balrogs?
>
> You ARE aware that fire causes air to expand and move away from the
source, aren't you? If the Balrogs were aflame (or if the wings were
substantial enough to affect the air, or both) then indeed their
arrival would be stormlike, and not a simile at all.
It would be stormlike, but not a storm.
It would be a ressemblance between two different things.
In any case, if you take the "storm" meaning, this is obviously not a
literal interpretation.
> Show that the Balrogs were not aflame or flying. The "tempest of
fire" pretty much indicates that there was fire involved in their
arrival. What were they doing, carrying torches?
I don't think so. They were probably aflame. I don't think anybody in
the whole thread has ever discussed that.
> "raining Balrogs"? That's not altogether unrealistic if firey
Balrogs came out of the sky, now is it?
You mean they fall flat to the ground and soak the dirt? :-)
A storm of Balrogs can be used to describe a group of flying Balrogs.
But it would be a simile, because flying Balrogs and a storm are
different, although they have a resemblance.
A tempest of fire can be used as a metaphor of flying fiery balrogs or
walking fiery balrogs or jumping fiery balrogs. Great forest fires are
often described as tempests of fire.
And the "tumult" meaning is perfectly valid in any case.
> >If the word tempest is "violent agitation or tumult", it does not
imply flight.
>
> Nor would it work in that sentence.
Why not? Do you think a troupe of fiery Balrogs wouldn't cause a
"violent agitation or tumult"?
> >> A simile is a figure of speech which expresses a resemblance
between two things which are normally different.
> >
> >Precisely. If this is a simile (the storm), it may indicate flying
> >Balrogs or may not. If it is not a simile (the tumult), then it does
not imply flying in any way.
>
> No, if it's a simile, it CANNOT indicate flying Balrogs. A simile
would have to indicate Balrogs which seemed to be flying but which were
not.
> Show that it's a simile.
Ah, here is a definition of simile. Let's use it:
Do you agree that a Balrog is different to a cloud?
Do you agree that storms are made (at least in an important part) of
clouds?
In this case, it would indicate a ressemblance between a storm (made of
clouds, usually with watery rain and lighting) and a group of Balrogs.
It works as a simile.
Which, BTW, is quite a moot point. Are we really arguing what figure of
speech may have used Tolkien in that passage?
R.L.V.
~~#~~
db
James Kellar wrote in message
<379463BA...@nospamplease.quantel.com>...
>apologies if anyone has already pointed this out, but what do you think
>Gandalf meant when he said, "Fly, you fools!" ?
> ^^^
That's a misprint in your copy. It should read: "Fly, you fool" and Gandalf
was speaking to the Balrog as they were tumbling down the chasm.
db
RLV
>
> Conrad Dunkerson hath written:
<snip>
> > The following are opinions apparently held by
> >Michael Martinez... NOT facts;
> >
> >Balrogs have wings
> >Balrogs can fly
> >Balrogs can shapechange
> >Tolkien's Elves did not have pointed ears
> >Celeborn's great wisdom virtually guaranteed the Ring quest
> >The Ring spoke on Mount Doom
> >The Elven and Dwarven races were generally friends
>
> To which can be added:
>
> Middle-earth was a pre-classical world and was not in any way medieval in
> character. In this statement, the term "pre-classical" is carefully left
> undefined, though much is made of a quote from Tolkien saying that the
> Dúnedain were "Egyptian" in some respects
Not to forget the evil black boots of Aragorn. And that asking for
explanations is stirring trouble.
You know, this could be the beginning of an "MM FAQ". This would be real
useful in this NG.
R.L.V.
~~#~~
"Call me Troll-slayer"
P.S.: Are you following the heroic efforts of poor Steuard Jensen in the
Hithlum passage thread? He is trying to introduce into MM's mind the
very advanced concept that (hold tight): "MM's interpretation of
Tolkien's words is not the only possible one"
Steuard tries and tries; you have to give him points for tenacity. Go
Steuard, go! ;-)
Michael Martinez
<iDsFHEAr...@the-arcane.demon.co.uk>, The resolved to say for all to read
and review:
>
>In article <7n14d4$2l...@drn.newsguy.com>, but only after serious
>contemplation, Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> put finger to
>keyboard and produced the following;
>>When I see someone rewrite the sentence successfully, I'll definitely concede
>>the point of ambiguity. Until then, no successful rewrite, no concession of
>>ambiguity. I realize that is just fuel for other fires, but that's the bottom
>>line.
>>
>
>Alright then, "..swiftly they arose, and passing over Hithlum they came
>to Lammoth as a tempest of fire".
>
>(Beware of the obvious trap). :-}
Christopher's rewrite of the passage doesn't do anything with the "tempest of
fire" phrase.
>
>BTW - while looking up the "actual" quote above I noticed that Ungoliant
>*also* had wings. "...she [Ungoliant] quailed and turned to flight".
I don't see any indication of flying through the air (or wings), however.
><sorry>
Yeah, right....
Michael Martinez
<379463BA...@nospamplease.quantel.com>, James resolved to say for all to
read and review:
>apologies if anyone has already pointed this out, but what do you think
>Gandalf meant when he said, "Fly, you fools!" ?
> ^^^
He was obviously whining about the insect which had settled on his nose.
Michael Martinez
<iYZk3.2103$ip4....@nntpserver.swip.net>, "Öjevind resolved to say for all to
read and review:
>
>
>Conrad Dunkerson hath written:
>
><snip>
>>
>>Michael Martinez... NOT facts;
I see Mr. Dunkerson felt compelled to share his usual ill-informed and seditious
opinions with us once again.
>>Balrogs have wings
Well, since J.R.R. Tolkien says they do, I AM inclined to take his word over
anyone else's. That's a fact, too.
>>Balrogs can fly
Since J.R.R. Tolkien says they do,....
>>Balrogs can shapechange
Since J.R.R. Tolkien says they do,....
>>Tolkien's Elves did not have pointed ears
Since J.R.R. Tolkien didn't say they did, and in fact pointed out their very
human appearance in several places,....
>>Celeborn's great wisdom virtually guaranteed the Ring quest
That's an opinion.
>>The Ring spoke on Mount Doom
Tolkien wrote the passage.
>>The Elven and Dwarven races were generally friends
Again, this is according to J.R.R. Tolkien.
>To which can be added:
>
>Middle-earth was a pre-classical world and was not in any way medieval in
>character.
Well, Tolkien repeatedly denied the Medievality others alleged....
>In this statement, the term "pre-classical" is carefully left
>undefined, though much is made of a quote from Tolkien saying that the
>Dúnedain were "Egyptian" in some respects
Yup. Not that anything Tolkien would have written should be taken seriously by
his FANS -- they know so much better than HE what Middle-earth really is:
May I say that all this is 'mythical', and not any kind of new religion
or vision. As far as I know it is merely an imaginative invention, to
express. in the only way I can, some of my (dim) apprehension of the
world. All I can say is that, if it were 'history', it would be difficult
to fit in the land and events (or 'cultures') into such evidence as we
possess, archaeological or geological, concerning the nearer or remoter
part of what is now called Europe; though the Shire, for instance, is
expressly stated to have been in this region (I p. 12). I could have
fitted things in with greater versimilitude, if the story had not become
too far developed, before the question ever occurred to me. I dougt if
there would haev been much to gain; and I hope the, evidently long but
undefined, gap [*] in time between the Fall of Barad-dur and our Days is
sufficient for 'literary credibility', even for readers acquainted with
what is known or surmised of 'pre-history'.
I have, I suppose, constructed an imaginary TIME, but kept my feet
on my own mother-earth for PLACE. I prefer that to the contemporary
mode of seeking remote globes in 'space'. However curious, they are
alien, and not lovable with the love of blood-kin. MIDDLE-EARTH is
(by the way & if such a note is necessary) not my own invention. It
is a modernization or alteration (N[ew] E[nglish] D[ictionary]
'a perversion') of an old word for the inhabited world of Men, the
OIKOUMENE: middle because thought of vaguely as set amidst the
encircling Seas and (in the northern imagination) between ice of the
North and the fire of the South. O. English MIDDAN-GEARD, mediaeval
MIDDEN-ERD, MIDDLE-ERD. Many reviewers seem to assume that Middle-
earth is another planet!
[*]
I imagine the gap to be about 6000 years: that is we are now at the end
of the Fifth Age, if the Ages were of about the same length as S.A. and
T.A. But they have, I think, quickened; and I imagine we are actually
at the end of the Sixth Age, or in the Seventh.
(from Letter 211, THE LETTERS OF J.R.R. TOLKIEN)
So, go ahead, tell me again how Middle-earth is -- IN FACT -- Medieval. I'm
sure we can find all sorts of agreement from the author. He would never have
pictured his stories being set, say, 6000 years in the past in an IMAGINARY
TIME. That's just MY opinion after all, isn't it?
As written by J.R.R. Tolkien, of course....
Michael Martinez
sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu resolved to say for all to read and review:
I'm quite certain the "the wings were a metaphor" arguments were grounded in the
belief there were no wings. So many of the metaphorists said as much.
>As it stands, your FAQ is not excluding my opinion, as my opinion is
>substantially the same as your own. It's excluding my dialect, and a
>rather common one at that (I don't know which of our two dialects is
>the most common, but it could easily be either). If you want it to be
>a "The Right Words to Use when Discussing Tolkien FAQ", then it ought
>to be labeled as such.
You DO recall that in the only poll conducted on these news groups that the
PRO-Wings camp outvoted the NO-wings camp, don't you? I cannot agree at all
with your assertion that your wording is the "common view".
I myself said, when that poll was first begun, that it was not scientific and
the results would be questionable either way. I still believe that it is no
more truly representative of the "common" view now than it was then, but it does
indicate that people are at least evenly divided on the issue.
>> They were wings -- that is what [Tolkien] called them.
>
>Again, this is simply a claim that Tolkien used the word "wings" in
>the same way that you do.
[snip]
No, this is a reference to Tolkien's statement in the book:
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; but still 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.
(From "The Bridge of Khazad-dum" in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING)
What Tolkien MEANT by his use of the word is really irrelevant at this point.
That he used the word "wings" to refer to SOMETHING is all that matters.
Whatever that SOMETHING was, J.R.R. Tolkien called it "wings".
>I know I'm pounding this to death, but honestly, it's entirely in an
>effort to avoid needless arguments in the future...
Don't take this the wrong way, but there is nothing you or I can do to avoid
needless arguments in the future! :)
>...In fact, I believe that you could even _replace_ the FAQ section about
>simile and metaphor with a brief acknowledgement of peoples' different uses
>of the word "wings" and come out ahead.
[snip]
I don't, however. I said I would think about how that question is answered, but
I also said I would not use the kind of language you propose. As much as
certain people like to pretend I'm only stating my opinions, the fact remains
that Tolkien wrote about the Balrog's wings stretching from wall to wall. He
did not phrase the sentence in such a way as to be ambiguous. He said the
Balrog's wings stretched from wall to wall. Whatever you or I think he meant by
"wings" in that sentence is irrelevant (as I've often said before). That he
chose to call them wings is sufficient.
Michael Martinez
rl...@my-deja.com resolved to say for all to read and review:
[snip the usual clueless simile argument]
"I know this music. Let's change the rhythm."
defau...@domain.com
(snip practically everything)
> Just try doing this last part. Don't go on and on about "poetic
> language".
> Just rewrite the sentence so it works as you think it should. That
> will bring
> and end to the debate, I assure you, if you can do it. But so far, no
> one HAS
> been able to do it. And many people have tried (including me).
>
I happen to be of the opinion that the idea of reworking the sentence to
reflect some literal meaning does violence to that which is important
about it, which to me is a sequence of images. Thus if I were to
succeed in creating a paraphrase which satisfied all the definitions
you're looking for and conveyed a literal meaning that pleased me, the
result as far as I'm concerned would still be a misleading sidelight
that would not prove my real position. To engage in such an exercise
would be false rhetoric and, to me, ethically questionable.
Even if I were sure I could produce a paraphrase that would change
your opinion, I would rather offer arguments I feel are valid and fail
to convince you than convince you by offering arguments I do not believe
in. Therefore I will not create such paraphrases. I'd rather you did
not ask me again to do so, although of course you can if you want--I
won't consider it flaming or anything. OTOH, if you ask me again and
claim the reasons I state for not wishing to enter the exercise are not
my true reasons, I will consider you to be calling me a liar--which
might not be a flame, but would by my lights certainly not be polite.
Since I have explained my tender sensibilities on the matter, I am sure
you will not do such a thing.
Rufus Polson
defau...@domain.com
> You have better sight that MM. He has just said me that this point of
> the FAQ had never been discussed.
>
I think he meant, nobody had previously argued it *as a response to
himposting that FAQ*, which could well be true although not really an
indication of general opinion on the topic.
> > Rufus Polson
> > "We're the second largest country upon this planet earth
> > And if Russia keeps on shrinking, then soon we'll be first! (as
> long as
> > we keep Quebec)"
> > --Arrogant Worms, 'Canada's really big'; should be sung with intense
>
> > mock patriotism.
>
> Hummm. Could you expand on the quote in your sig, please?
>
Well, you asked for it.
The Arrogant Worms are a Canadian comedy trio. They sing silly songs.
“Canada’s Really Big” is their alternative Canadian national anthem.
Our real national anthem kind of sucks, so up until now all we’ve really
had was the theme to “Hockey Night in Canada”! But now we have
something that can be
sung with pride.
It may be that you were asking what basis they might have for suggesting
Russia to be shrinking. This should answer Arkady too. As this is
something in a Worms song rather than my own statement, I couldn't say
for sure--and since it's comedy rather
than serious political commentary, I'm not willing to hold them to any
rigorous standards. Presumably, though, they are referring to the
splintering off of various areas which, while not part of Mother Russia
itself, were part of the old USSR and in some cases part of the older
empire Russia controlled. The area of firm Russian political hegemony
seems to have been shrinking. I don't think you could draw these
careful
distinctions and still leave a funny line. Man, I've been getting
careful
how I say things--must be all these discussions with MM.
Anyway, it goes:
When I look around me, I can’t believe what I see
It seems as if this country has lost its will to live!
The economy is lousy, we barely have an army,
But we can still stand proudly cuz Canada’s really big!
We're the second largest country upon this planet earth
And if Russia keeps on shrinking, then soon we'll be first!
(as long as we keep Quebec)
The USA has tanks and Switzerland has banks
They can keep them thanks, they just don’t amount
Cause when you get down to it you find out what the truth is,
It isn’t what you do with it, it’s the size that counts!
Most people will tell you that France is pretty large,
but you can put fourteen Frances into this land of ours!
(It’d take a lot of work, it'd take a whole lot of work!)
We’re larger than Malaysia, almost as big as Asia,
We’re bigger than Australia and it’s a continent!
So big we rarely bother to go seeone another, (music
begins trailing off)
Though we often go to other countries for vacations . . . (Dead pause)
Our mountains are very pointy, our prairies are not!
The rest is kind of bumpy, but man do we have a lot!
(We’ve got a lot of land, we've got a whole lot of land!)
So stand up and be proud and sing out very loud,
We stand out from the crowd cuz Canadaaa’s reaaallllyyyy bbiiiiiggg!
Michael Martinez
defau...@domain.com resolved to say for all to read and review:
>
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>(snip practically everything)
>
>> Just try doing this last part. Don't go on and on about "poetic
>> language". Just rewrite the sentence so it works as you think it should.
>> That will bring and end to the debate, I assure you, if you can do it.
>> But so far, no one HAS been able to do it. And many people have tried
>> (including me).
>>
>
>I happen to be of the opinion that the idea of reworking the sentence to
>reflect some literal meaning does violence to that which is important
>about it, which to me is a sequence of images. Thus if I were to
>succeed in creating a paraphrase which satisfied all the definitions
>you're looking for and conveyed a literal meaning that pleased me, the
>result as far as I'm concerned would still be a misleading sidelight
>that would not prove my real position. To engage in such an exercise
>would be false rhetoric and, to me, ethically questionable.
A dodge is a dodge. If the complaint about the Balrog Wings FAQ is that I'm
making a misleading statement in saying that no one has shown (thus far) that
the Hithlum passage can mean anything other than that the Balrogs flew to
Lammoth, then the point is most easily made by rewriting the sentence. The
books won't be changed. History won't be altered forever, so that people forget
some cherished memory. It would just prove the assertion that the passage is
ambiguous. So far, nothing has been able to show the ambiguity.
Arguing about individual elements is self-defeating and basically a waste of
time. Until you put all the pieces together to show how the whole works, you
show nothing, no matter how many meanings and uses you can find for each part.
It's just like proving you can build the fastest car in the world. Trotting out
all the different engine parts you can get your hands on doesn't show you know
how to put them together (or that you in fact build the fastest car with those
parts).
Succinctness will prove the point. Nothing else, really.
Michael Martinez
<WjmIvOAA...@the-arcane.demon.co.uk>, The resolved to say for all to read
and review:
>
>In article <7n2vgr$2k...@drn.newsguy.com>, but only after serious
>contemplation, Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> put finger to
>keyboard and produced the following;
>>fire" phrase.
>>
>
>again? Was it ever intended (by JRRT) for publication? Or is it just
>another example of "discarded text" and, if so, was it discarded because
>it suggested aerial flight which was not intended?
It's virtually impossible to say what J.R.R. Tolkien would have intended for
publication in THE SILMARILLION. The published book is very much a post-humous
collaborative effort, representing the editorial views and decisions of
Christopher Tolkien (with some help from Guy Gavriel Kay).
I used the Houghton Mifflin hardback editions for all the citations which
follow.
The passage which appeared in THE SILMARILLION is:
But Ungoliant had grown great, and he less by the power that had gone
out of him; and she rose against him, and her cloud closed about him,
and she enmeshed him in a web of clinging thongs to strangle him.
Then Morgoth sent forth a terrible cry, that echoed in the mountains.
Therefore that region was called Lammoth; for the echoes of his voice
dwelt there ever after, so that any who cried aloud in that land awoke
them, and all the waste between the hills and the sea was filled with
a clamour as of voices in anguish. The cry of Morgoth in that hour
was the greatest and most dreadful that was ever heard in the northern
world; the mountains shook, and the earth trembled, and rocks were riven
asunder. Deep in forgotten places that cry was heard. 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 now switfly they arose, and passing over
Hithlum they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire. With their whips
of flame they smote asunder the webs of Ungoliant, ad she quailed,
and turned to flight, belching black vapours to cover her;....
(From "Of the Flight of the Noldor" in THE SILMARILLION, pp. 80-1)
The original text reads so:
$17 But Ungoliant was not daunted. She had grown great, and he less
by the power that had gone out of him. Now she rose against him, and
her cloud closed about him, and she cast upon him a hideous web of
clinging thongs to strangle him. Then Morgoth sent forth a terrible
cry that echoed in the mountains. Therefore that region was called
Lammoth; for the echoes of his voice dwelt there ever after, so that
any who cried aloud in that land awoke them, and all the waste between
the hills and the sea was filled with a clamour as of voices in anguish.
$18 But the cry of Morgoth in that hour was the greatest and most
dreadful that was ever heard in the northern world; the mountains
shook, and the earth trembled, and rocks were riven asunder. Deep
in forgotten places that cry was heard. 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.
$19 Then Ungoliant quailed, and she turned to flight, belching black
vapours to cover her; but the Balrogs pursued her with whips of flame
into the Mountains of Shadow, until Morgoth recalled them. Then her
webs were torn asunder, and Morgoth was released, and he returned
to Angband.
(From "The Later Quenta Silmarillion", MORGOTH'S RING, pp. 296-7)
The passage above replaced the earlier, 1930s passage which reads:
Little is known of the paths or journeys of Morgoth after that terrible
deed; but this is known to all, that escaping from the hunt he came at
last with Ungoliant over the Grinding Ice and so into the northern
lands of this world. There Ungoliant summoned him to give her the
promised reward. The half of her pay had been the sap of the Trees
of Light. The other half was a full share in the plundered jewels.
Morgoth yielded these up, and she devoured them, and their light
perished from the earth, and still more huge grew Ungoliant's dark
and hideous form. But no share in the Silmarils would Morgoth give.
Such was the first thieves' quarrel.
So might had Ungoliant become that she enmeshed Morgoth in her choking
nets, 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,
but Ungoliant was driven away into the uttermost South, where she long
dwelt.
(From "The Quenta", THE SHAPING OF MIDDLE-EARTH, pp. 92-3)
Christopher Tolkien does not comment on the differences between the text cited
from MORGOTH'S RING and the text cited from THE SILMARILLION.
>>>BTW - while looking up the "actual" quote above I noticed that Ungoliant
>>>*also* had wings. "...she [Ungoliant] quailed and turned to flight".
>>
>>I don't see any indication of flying through the air (or wings), however.
>
>Many (including myself) would say the same about the "Hithlum passage" -
>even more so about the version in the Sil.
Yes, but the Hithlum passage clearly denotes flying Balrogs. Simply saying that
Ungoliant's turning to flight suggests she flew is ridiculous. It would be
better to point to a passage similar to the Hithlum passage and show that the
wording indeed suggests something other than flight. Of course, I can do this
with the opposite effect:
Then, seeing that his hosts were overthrown and his power dispersed,
Morgoth quailed, and he dared not to come forth himself. 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; and so sudden and ruinous was the onset of that
dreadful fleet that the host of the Valar was driven back, for the
coming of the dragons was with great thunder, and lightning, and a
tempest of fire.
(From "Of the Voyage of Earendil", THE SILMARILLION, p. 252)
We know from the story of Glaurung that dragons breathe fire, and from the
following paragraph that these winged dragons indeed flew (since Earendil and
the Eagles of Manwe fought them in the sky). Hence, the "tempest of fire"
refers to the fire breathed from the flying dragons while they were in the sky
-- a literal "rain of fire". Seeing Tolkien use the phrase so once, there is no
reason to assume he wouldn't use it so the other time. Unless someone can show
where he used it metaphorically (in a third passage).
The Arcane Chas
contemplation, Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> put finger to
keyboard and produced the following;
>and review:
>>
>>
>>Alright then, "..swiftly they arose, and passing over Hithlum they came
>>to Lammoth as a tempest of fire".
>>
>>(Beware of the obvious trap). :-}
>
>fire" phrase.
>
I also noticed that. So this "tempest of fire" phrase - where is it from
again? Was it ever intended (by JRRT) for publication? Or is it just
another example of "discarded text" and, if so, was it discarded because
it suggested aerial flight which was not intended?
>>
>>BTW - while looking up the "actual" quote above I noticed that Ungoliant
>>*also* had wings. "...she [Ungoliant] quailed and turned to flight".
>
>I don't see any indication of flying through the air (or wings), however.
>
Many (including myself) would say the same about the "Hithlum passage" -
even more so about the version in the Sil.
>><sorry>
>
>Yeah, right....
>
Well, the "flying spider" *was* intended to be "tongue in cheek". :-}
Steuard Jensen
> I'm quite certain the "the wings were a metaphor" arguments were
> grounded in the belief there were no wings. So many of the
> metaphorists said as much.
Right... because for the most part the "metaphorists" were not clear
on the linguistic nature of the argument at the time. They said
"there were no wings" because they were only thinking of _normal_
wings (made of something more solid than "shadow-stuff"). Quite a few
intelligent and well-read people have advocated the "metaphorist"
position over time; did you really think that we all thought there was
_nothing_ there, in blatant contradiction with the text?
Just for kicks, I went onto Deja.com and picked through some of the
old Wars of the Wing (starting with the "Simile vs. Metaphor" debate
over a year ago). I looked at posts by a number of people in the "no
wings" camp, trying to sort out which of them believed (A) that the
word "wings" was meant to refer to some sort of shadowy extension of
the Balrog and how many believed (B) that the word "wings" did not
refer to anything "real" in the scene.
Looking through the debates, I identified the following people as "no
wingers" (or "metaphorists", if you prefer; I tried to focus on
discussions involving that aspect of the debate):
Bill Hicklin, Matt Gable, Casey Foster, Ron Ploeg, John Alcock,
David Salo, Grimgard
This is very far from being a complete list, but it's all I had time
for; I chose some names that I recognized and respected and some at
random or because they showed up frequently in the debate. Once
identified, I dug through their posts until I could categorize them as
(A) or (B).
In every case, I was able to find a statement that I believe clearly
stated that "wings" referred to what we've been calling "shadow-stuff"
(Bill Hicklin said "palpable darkness", which I rather like). Thus,
we have eight examples of (A) including me, and no examples of (B). I
can only recall ever seeing one example of (B), and that was a very
recent poster who suggested that the Balrog's wings only existed
within the minds of those facing it (I apologize for forgetting who
you are!).
I think this strongly supports my claim that virtually all
"metaphorists" believe that the word "wings" referrs to the "wings of
shadow-stuff" around the Balrog. Thus, virtually all "metaphorists"
have an opinion on this question quite similar to my own, which you
and I agree is quite similar to yours. Considering this, I don't
think that you would risk much confusion if you acknowledged our more
limited use of the word "wing" in your FAQ.
[I said:]
> > It's excluding my dialect, and a rather common one at that (I don't
> > know which of our two dialects is the most common, but it could
> > easily be either).
>
> I cannot agree at all with your assertion that your wording is the
> "common view".
I can't quite see where in my statement I made the assertion that my
wording was _the_ common view. First I called it _a_ common dialect,
and then proceeded to state explicitly that either dialect could
easily be the most common. Both of these statements strike me as
directly opposed to the assertion that you attribute to me.
> >I know I'm pounding this to death, but honestly, it's entirely in an
> >effort to avoid needless arguments in the future...
>
> Don't take this the wrong way, but there is nothing you or I can do to avoid
> needless arguments in the future! :)
True... but I can try to discourage the ones I recognize, right? :)
Anyway, though, I can't imagine coming up with anything more to say on
this issue in the near future, so I think I'll leave it here and get
back to that candidacy exam thing... but I'm glad that we've achieved
what agreement we have!
Steuard Jensen
defau...@domain.com
As per usual, plenty of snips here.
> >>
> >Your position, as I understand it, is that in the passage taken as a
> >whole, a number of elements perhaps only suggestive taken
> individually
> >sum up to a conclusive whole. Further, I think you would say that
> even
> >the weaker elements in the grouping take on added suggestiveness
> given
> >the presence of the others. That’s just my take, and you may of
> course
> >feel free to correct me here.
> > It seems to me that this doesn't actually make it invalid to
> discuss
> >to what extent, if any, individual elements are suggestive of flight.
>
> What invalidates other meanings for the individual elements is the act
> of
> putting them together as a whole. Just try it.
>
I repeat, I find the fact of stylistic unity in a sentence
unremarkable. As well, even accepting your thesis it still seems clear
that there must be some break-point, as it were, where the combination
fails if the individual elements are sufficiently weak.
> > “as a tempest of fire”. Well, of course they’re fiery, so the real
> >issue is “as a tempest”. This has often seemed the strongest portion
> of
> >the passage in terms of suggesting flight. You have compared it with
>
> >references to the onslaught of dragons, powerful fiery things that
> fly,
> >which is fair enough as far as it goes.
>
> Specifically, I have pointed out that Tolkien used the phrase to
> describe the
> onslought of the dragons:
>
> ...and do sudden and ruinous was the onset of that dreadful fleet
> that the
> host of the Valar was driven back, for the coming of the dragons was
> with
> great thunder, and lightning, and a tempest of fire.
> (From "Of the Voyage of Earendil..." in THE SILMARILLION)
>
> >...However, the phrase does not seem to me to be at all related to
> issues of
> >flight.
>
The subject of this sentence, "the phrase", indicated the final element
in the Hithlum passage rather than your dragon reference--as I suspect
you were perfectly well aware (although I could be wrong). I think
"which is fair enough as far as it goes" was a reasonably clear
indicator that I was not giving you a hard time about that particular
point. I simply feel that if a type of descriptor is used both of
flying and nonflying things, it is not at all a firm indicator of
flight. You showed that it was used for dragons, which is OK; I showed
that similar constructions are used more generally.
> Conveniently not. However, it should indicate even to someone who
> might wish to
> argue that the winged, flying dragons were neither winged nor flying
> that there
> was a rain of fire. The imagery of the words preceding the phrase
> includes
> thunder and lightning.
>
> >...It looks to me, as I said, like a poetic commonplace, almost a
> deliberate
> >formula...
>
> Tolkien is not very formulaic, however, and his prose is hardly
> commonplace.
> You'll not find much in the literature which matches his idiom and
> style.
>
I did not say his prose was commonplace. This is clearly an issue of
interpretation rather than fact, but I see it as an appeal to certain
high, archaic styles of writing, such as but not limited to the OE
poetry he was so fond of, in which standardized images (generally kept
fresh by variation) were used. By using images in deliberately
formulaic fashion, he was able to conjure the epic mood associated with
that sort of technique. This is not, in our current era, a remotely
common method of writing--and I believe he brings to it a great deal of
skill and knowledge, and is able to invoke the style without allowing
his language to become stale.
> >...It is at this point that my argument with respect to other
> occasions Tolkien
> >used very similar formulas in circumstances of similar elevation of
> >language, clearly referring to non-flying beings, becomes relevant.
> For
> >Tolkien this doesn't seem to have been a simile particularly
> connected
> >with flight.
>
> You need to show that.
I quoted the quotes. You dismissed them on the basis that I did not
have an accompanying argument relating to the whole sentence. I provided
one. You now dismiss them, if I understand correctly, on the basis that
you don't see "as a tempest of fire" as a simile, whereas my citations
clearly are similes. Since the constructions in my citations are
similes and very similar to the "as a tempest of fire" under discussion,
I see no particular reason to reject the idea that "as a tempest of
fire" could be a simile. Elsewhere in this post I have a brief
discussion of what happens to the phrase if it's *not* a simile--the
gist being that IMO, the result of that doesn't strongly suggest flight
either.
The quotations in question:
“now men leaped from the ships tothe quays of the Harlond and swept
north like a storm.”
“they drove through the hosts of Isengard as a wind among grass.”
and
“The Orcs reeled and screamed and cast aside both sword and spear. Like
a black smoke driven by a mounting wind they fled.”
Although less directly relevant, just to reinforce the idea that Tolkien
was prone to elemental images in these sorts of situations I will add:
"Fewer were they but they clove through the Southrons like a firebolt in
a forest"
> The language may or may not be poetic, but it MUST have meaning and
> coherence. Otherwise it is a pointless distraction.
>
The language is certainly poetic. This is (ahem) a fact. Whether the
meaning of that poetic language works on a literal level or not is worth
discussing. However, language rich with imagery does not become a
pointless distraction simply because those images are not literal
representations. No matter what you think about the reading of this
passage, Tolkien often used images which were, quite clearly, not to be
taken literally. The occasions on which he did were not, IMHO,
instances of pointless distraction.
> There is nothing mystical about the fact that Balrogs got around
> Middle-earth.
> The narrative in THE SILMARILLION is essentially a historical one. It
> doesn't
> describe the undescribable.
>
The Silmarillion's narrative is quite different in different sections.
Some of it is story at a level of individual character--not precisely
what I'd call novelistic narrative, though. Sections are told in
historical fashion. Some of it operates quite clearly at a level of
myth--concerning true happenings, no doubt, but myth/epic poetry in its
style. The section surrounding the destruction of the trees and
creation of the sun and moon is pretty clearly such a section.
> The Silm in turn was
> >envisioned as a stand-alone work--people were supposed to be able to
> >read and understand it without having read LOTR, yes? So, then, even
> if
> >we take the LOTR balrog as being winged in a manner which suggests
> the
> >idea of flight (Not that I'm saying anyone has such an opinion, but
> even
> >if that were the case), in the Silm this passage would be the first
> time
> >the reader was introduced to the idea that Balrogs flew...
>
> No, not necessarily. The history of THE SILMARILLION is long and
> complex, and
> Tolkien rewrote some of the stories several times.
>
Well, yes, but since the Hithlum passage is the only one that has been
found from any version anywhere, anytime, that has been put forward as
an indication of flight, then the passage is both the first and last
such suggestion in any version we can conceivably put together.
> >...Balrogs had featured in the story before, but never defined as
> flyers.
> >OK, so now the author wants to bring in for the reader the idea that
> they flew.
> >This seems like something you'd need to make clearer than you would a
>
> >reference to them flying after the reader already knew that they
> flew.
>
> But you're not looking at WHEN the Hithlum passage was written. It
> was written
> after THE LORD OF THE RINGS -- after Tolkien had decided to put wings
> on the
> Balrogs. In seeking for reasons to disregard the obvious, you're
> overlooking
> way too much information.
>
My statement is based on the thesis that the Silmarillion was intended
to be capable of functioning as a stand-alone work. You have more
knowledge than I about whether this is a plausible thesis. If you know
information tending to negate it, I'll be happy to be enlightened.
Otherwise, discussions of LOTR are not relevant. In any case, I was
under the impression that you yourself didn't consider the issue of
wings to be in itself an indicator of flight. Changed your mind?
> Do you understand what simile is? I'm getting the impression that you
> do not.
> I foresee another lengthy discussion of simile and metaphor looming on
> the
> horizon....
I guarantee you I will not participate in such a discussion.
> >...but are instead quite standard general usage for the sort of
> elevated
> >language we are dealing with. I feel "winged speed", while it does
> mention
> >wings, if anything suggests a comparison to flight which would be
> >unnecessary/inappropriate if actual flight were involved. And,
> finally, I find
> >that "like a tempest" is a simile of a sort that Tolkien used more
> than once
> >referring to non-flying things;
>
> It was "as a tempest", and you have not shown that it is, in fact, a
> simile.
"as a tempest", quite.
Well, let's see. I can see three possible ways to take the phrase.
1) "as" could be taken as meaning "taking the role of"--as in "Ojevind
arrived at the costume ball as Hamlet (to applause, rave reviews etc.)"
This isn't too likely :-).
2) The construction could be a simile--one, perhaps, with a fairly close
connection to what's actually happening, but a simile none the less. In
such a case, the word "tempest" can be taken in its full meaning, but
it's only an image--no literal tempest, of fire or otherwise, is taken
to be present. In such a case, the quotations I have been citing are
relevant to the degree of connection one takes it as having with flight.
3) The construction could be taken literally. Here, we are saying that
the balrogs were physically a tempest of fire. Given this, quotations
relating to similes would not relate. At the same time, "tempest of
fire" is evidently a single phenomenon. But there isn't, in real life,
any such thing as a "tempest of fire" as far as I know--it's essentially
a coined phrase if taken literally. This is good--it allows us to
perceive "tempest of fire" in terms such that a group of balrogs could
literally be one. The resulting perception/definition, though, has to
be missing a fair number of elements normally included in a tempest,
such as precipitation, massive clouds, lightning, high winds. Again,
this isn't a major problem--a "tempest of fire" isn't the same thing as
a tempest. But, if we need to drop lots of other things normally
associated with the non-fiery variety of tempest, what's so sacred about
height? According to various posters, the closest real-life equivalents
to a "tempest of fire" tend to be groundbound phenomena. A tempest of
fire could differ from a normal tempest in being low to the ground as
easily as in not involving cyclonic winds or other things that would be
tough for balrogs to manifest. So, IMHO, a literal reading requires
enough alterations to what we consider a "tempest" to be that standing
on precision with regard to any particular feature is somewhat
contradictory. Even taken literally (which still seems to me an odd
reading) I don't see a strong reason for thinking 'flight' unless one
already had reason to believe they flew.
> Basically, you've done a magngificent job of convincing yourself the
> Balrogs
> didn't fly (or have wings, I suppose)
I see these as two separate topics; I had thought you did too.
> , but you're argument is not coherent.
I tend to think it is. BTW, that's "your", not "you're". Pet peeve.
> You've made many assumptions
Well, I could say "I assume nothing", like a certain prominent NG figure
has been known to. However, I don't think it's really possible to
evaluate meanings in a language without making some assumptions. You
make assumptions based on previous experience. Otherwise you have to
reinvent the world anew every day, which may sound lovely and childlike,
but there's something to be said for not being 1 year old anymore.
> , you've not supported your conclusions with
> relevant citations and logic
I tend to think I have.
> , and you have not really tried to show how the
> sentence CAN work without meaning that the Balrogs didn't fly.
>
I don't *want* to show how the sentence can work *without* meaning the
Balrogs *didn't* fly.
I want to show how the sentence can work *without* meaning the Balrogs
flew. The other thing is your job.
Seriously, though, just because you don't like a nonliteral reading, and
prefer to debate purely within the context of a very no-figurative-stuff
environment, doesn't make such readings unworkable. The sentence works
fine non-flying if you accept the possibility that it's fairly poetic
stuff. Given that basic idea, there just isn't a problem. I would say
that it works fine non-flying even if you're talking at the level of
literalness you prefer, but that's not a reading I'm trying to support
so I'm not going to worry about it overmuch. I think that your whole
stickler-for-literalism approach is basically inappropriate to the
material.
And with this I think I've said about all I have to say about the issue
(this one--I may have one or two things yet to say re. the LOTR wings
passages, but will probably close down on those soon as well). You may
have the last word and welcome; we've about reached the stage where
further meeting of mind is unlikely to occur. All that remains is to
hope some of the other posters and lurkers hereabouts found my
assumptions, citations and logic more reasonable than you do.
Rufus Polson
"Vegetables live in oppression, served on our tables each night
This killing of veggies is madness--I say we take up the fight!"
--Arrogant Worms, 'Carrot juice is murder'
defau...@domain.com
> >
> >I happen to be of the opinion that the idea of reworking the sentence
> to
> >reflect some literal meaning does violence to that which is important
>
> >about it, which to me is a sequence of images. Thus if I were to
> >succeed in creating a paraphrase which satisfied all the definitions
> >you're looking for and conveyed a literal meaning that pleased me,
> the
> >result as far as I'm concerned would still be a misleading sidelight
> >that would not prove my real position. To engage in such an exercise
>
> >would be false rhetoric and, to me, ethically questionable.
>
I continued:
Even if I were sure I could produce a paraphrase that would change
your opinion, I would rather offer arguments I feel are valid and fail
to convince you than convince you by offering arguments I do not believe
in. Therefore I will not create such paraphrases. I'd rather you did
not ask me again to do so, although of course you can if you want--I
won't consider it flaming or anything. OTOH, if you ask me again and
claim the reasons I state for not wishing to enter the exercise are not
my true reasons, I will consider you to be calling me a liar--which
might not be a flame, but would by my lights certainly not be polite.
Since I have explained my tender sensibilities on the matter, I am sure
you will not do such a thing.
Michael Martinez wrote:
> A dodge is a dodge.
You called me a liar. That is impolite. I do not appreciate it. It
may not be fashionable in this day and age, but I consider honour
something with some degree of importance. No matter what you may think
of my opinions, I really would ask you to believe that if I state a
belief or a motivation, that is in fact my belief or motivation. I will
attempt to do you the same courtesy.
Rufus Polson
Michael Martinez
sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu resolved to say for all to read and review:
>
>Quoth Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org>:
>> I'm quite certain the "the wings were a metaphor" arguments were
>> grounded in the belief there were no wings. So many of the
>> metaphorists said as much.
>
>Right... because for the most part the "metaphorists" were not clear
>on the linguistic nature of the argument at the time. They said
>"there were no wings" because they were only thinking of _normal_
This sentence makes absolutely no sense. What is a "normal" wing? Just
anything "solid" or not made of "shadow-stuff" which happens to be wing-shaped?
I'm afraid the dictionaries are not going to reflect that view.
>...Quite a few intelligent and well-read people have advocated the
>"metaphorist" position over time; did you really think that we all thought
>there was _nothing_ there, in blatant contradiction with the text?
So, what you're saying is that truth is democratically determined after all? If
"quite a few intelligent and well-read people" say a thing must be a certain
way, then it is? I don't recall making any disparaging remarks about who
insisted on the metaphorical view.
>Looking through the debates, I identified the following people as "no
>wingers" (or "metaphorists", if you prefer; I tried to focus on
>discussions involving that aspect of the debate):
>
> Bill Hicklin, Matt Gable, Casey Foster, Ron Ploeg, John Alcock,
> David Salo, Grimgard
>
>This is very far from being a complete list, but it's all I had time
>for; I chose some names that I recognized and respected and some at
>random or because they showed up frequently in the debate. Once
>identified, I dug through their posts until I could categorize them as
>(A) or (B).
>
>In every case, I was able to find a statement that I believe clearly
>stated that "wings" referred to what we've been calling "shadow-stuff"
>(Bill Hicklin said "palpable darkness", which I rather like). Thus,
>we have eight examples of (A) including me, and no examples of (B). I
>can only recall ever seeing one example of (B), and that was a very
>recent poster who suggested that the Balrog's wings only existed
>within the minds of those facing it (I apologize for forgetting who
>you are!).
I do make the effort to provide some sort of citations on occasion. It would be
helpful if you had done the same here. And a better example would be to cite
how those people voted in the poll.
Just trying to filter that thread on "wings" and "metaphor" I get nearly 500
hits (according to the first page -- I suppose it may be no more than a couple
hundred at most).
Nonetheless, here are a few examples of what the metaphorists you name had to
say. None of them acknowledged winged made of "shadow-stuff".
Here is one of Casey Foster's articles:
From: cfost...@aol.com (CFoster885)
Subject: Re: Simile vs. Metaphor [was: Re: Purely informal Balrog wings poll]
Date: 08 Apr 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <199804080125...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
References: <6gdtjq$dq4$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>
X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
>Prove that. Merely saying the wings were metaphors doesn't make them so.
>What are they metaphors for? Metaphors have to stand for something -- they
>have to mean something.
My God, how can anyone selectivly ignore things that bad. As has been stated
in no less than a hundred posts, wings are a metphor for shadow.
>Okay, show me one metaphor, anywhere, which makes use of imagery for a thing
>that is actually SIMILAR to the thing being metaphorically
The huskie walked towards them. The kids ran from the rampaging wolf. That
was quick, dirty, and made up but it disproves your theory.
--
Casey Foster
***
"Benson Arizona, the warm wind through your hair, my body flies the Galaxy,
my heart longs to be there" -Dark Star Theme Song
Here is one of Bill Hicklin's articles:
From: William <soli...@gamewood.net>
Subject: Re: Simile vs. Metaphor [was: Re: Purely informal Balrog wings poll]
Date: 08 Apr 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <352B8CFD...@gamewood.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <6g1h7n$f...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
<6g1lj3$a...@camel20.mindspring.com> <35249E4C...@edu.sollentuna.se>
<6g2agu$q...@camel15.mindspring.com> <6g2l3l$j7t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<6g3d4k$c...@camel20.mindspring.com> <6g3reu$vkp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<6g4tn8$j...@camel21.mindspring.com> <3528E38A...@gamewood.net>
<6gdtjq$dq4$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854";
x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Organization: Hah!
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: soli...@gamewood.net
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Michael Martinez wrote:
> In article <3528E38A...@gamewood.net>, soli...@gamewood.net
> wrote:
> >Michael Martinez wrote:
> >>
> >> If the wings are just shadow, just darkness, they are not a
> metaphor
> >> -- the metaphor must make use of some imagery which is contrary to
> >> the thing it represents. Hence, the second wings reference is not
> >> metaphorical. So, the wings are not a metaphor. They are just
> wings
> >> which at first were not seen and then were extended, appearing to
> be
> >> part of the shadow until they could be more clearly identified
> after
> >> the Balrog had increased its size and fully extended the wings.
> >
> >Whoa whoa whoa, Tex! Nowhere in my Strunk & White does it say that a
> >metaphor rekwires "contrary" imagery. Where did that come from?
>
> Okay, show me one metaphor, anywhere, which makes use of imagery for a
> thing
> that is actually SIMILAR to the thing being metaphorically described.
> Does
> love have wings? "On the wings of love" is a refrain from a popular
> song. Do
> you agree this is a metaphor? Either love has wings or it doesn't.
> If it
> does, how is the phrase metaphorical?
Either speed has wings or it doesn't. If it doesn't how is the phrase
not metaphorical?
How about "The poor condemned English...so many horrid ghosts."
"I must perforce have shown to thee such a declining day"
"Its mouth filled with daggers"
"Let the brow o'erwhelm as fearfully as doth a galled rock o'erhang
and jutty his confounded base"
And, from Tolkien, "Where there's a whip there's a way, my slugs"
After all, a metaphor is pointless unless there is some attribute of the
substituted concept which illustrates an aspect of the thing referenced.
>
>
> >But if you insist on it, fine: I'll submit that substantial,
> bone-and-hide
> >(and feathers?) wings are contrary to insubstantial shadow. As you
> >point out, simile and metaphor can be used together, although this
> >confuses some people. Like the confusion that arises from combining
> the
> >simile "like vast wings" with the metaphor "wings." There were no
> >wings.
>
> Prove that. Merely saying the wings were metaphors doesn't make them
> so.
> What are they metaphors for? Metaphors have to stand for something --
> they
> have to mean something.
Naturally. The word "wings" is a metaphor for "shadow." That isn't too
hard, is it?
>
>
> >There was a vast spreading shadow that reached out in a winglike
> >fashion. I don't expect you to accept this, Michael. But you could
> at
> >least admit that one doesn't have to be a drooling idiot to accept
> it.
>
> The shadow is already dealt with in the passage. The wings are by
> this point
> distinct from it.
Really? "Shadow' doesn't appear after "shadow like two vast wings" until
after the second "wings" passage. "The darkness grew" very likely
refers to the shadow, but that is not to say that it has been "dealt
with".
>
>
> One does not have to see metaphor in every sentence -- nor even in
> just those
> where the presence of metaphor supports a certain point of view.
>
> Not to mention the fact that the shadow is already large when the
> Balrog is
> first introduced.
What exactly does that have to do with anything? The shadow was large.
It got larger. Is there a problem?
--
_________________________________________________
William Cloud Hicklin "And he named him craven,
soli...@gamewood.net and lord of slaves"
_________________________________________________
Here is one of Matt Gable's articles:
From: Matt Gable <mga...@acpub.duke.edu>
Subject: End of the Wings Debate [was: Re: Troll Patrol: Simile vs. Metaphor
[was: Re: Purely informal Balrog wings poll]]
Date: 09 Apr 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980408...@bio3.acpub.duke.edu>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Organization: Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Michael Martinez wrote:
> In article <352B8ECE...@gamewood.net>, soli...@gamewood.net wrote:
>
> >I should point out the structure of the first wings passage. The
> >subject of the sentence is "shadow". Not "wings." "Wings" is the object
> >of the preposition. T is saying there was a shadow which was like
> >wings, not that there were wings that were like shadow. Shadow:
> >present. Wings: Not present save as literary device.
>
> There are two subjects in the sentence, Bill -- it consists of two clauses:
>
> "His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it
> reached out like two vast wings."
>
> If you're going to analyze structure, at least confine the analysis to what
> Tolkien wrote, okay? And referring to the books will help you in that
> endeavor.
>
>
> >Then he gives a sentence where the subject is "wings". Preceded by a
> >definitive. Now, "the wings" implies something that has already been
> >introduced. Where? The only mention of "wings" up to this point is *not*
> >as something actually there, but as a prepositional object used to
> >describe "shadow". In which case "its wings" is a substitution for
> >"shadow."
>
> And if it weren't for the Hithlum passage which has the Balrogs flying over
> Hithlum, it might seem credible the wings were only shadow. Maybe they were
> only shadow anyway, but were nonetheless wings enough for Tolkien to go back
> and add this later sentence after most of the chapter was complete.
Bill's analysis is good. He has shown that Tolkien's words in the Moria
passage mean that the wings were figurative. The text does not place
literal wings on the Balrog of Moria.
I can't believe we went this long without carefully analyzing the
structure of these sentences. It was right in front of us all along:
shades of "pedo m. a m." Kudos to Bill for finally reading it correctly
and saying the word.
Gable
[Note: No, Bill's analysis was NOT good. Matt was just trying to be annoying.]
John Alcock did make the embarrassing statement that the wings were just a
metaphor for the shape of the shadow. I'll give you his support there, and
possibly Ron Ploeg, too.
>I think this strongly supports my claim that virtually all
>"metaphorists" believe that the word "wings" referrs to the "wings of
>shadow-stuff" around the Balrog.
Sorry, but I just shot that down.
>[I said:]
>> > It's excluding my dialect, and a rather common one at that (I don't
>> > know which of our two dialects is the most common, but it could
>> > easily be either).
>>
>> I cannot agree at all with your assertion that your wording is the
>> "common view".
>
>I can't quite see where in my statement I made the assertion that my
>wording was _the_ common view.
[snip]
And now I guess we start arguing about what "common" means....
Marc Lipshitz
Arkady <RedA...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7n1k6o$o44$1...@lure.pipex.net...
>
> > > Rufus Polson
> > > "We're the second largest country upon this planet earth
> > > And if Russia keeps on shrinking, then soon we'll be first! (as long
as
> > > we keep Quebec)"
> > > --Arrogant Worms, 'Canada's really big'; should be sung with intense
> > > mock patriotism.
> >
> > Hummm. Could you expand on the quote in your sig, please?
>
>
in that some former parts of it have broken away or attempted to break away.
Cheers
Marc Lipshitz
Öjevind Lång
Michael Martinez hath written:
<snip>
>
>So, go ahead, tell me again how Middle-earth is -- IN FACT -- Medieval.
I'm
>sure we can find all sorts of agreement from the author. He would never
have
>pictured his stories being set, say, 6000 years in the past in an IMAGINARY
>TIME. That's just MY opinion after all, isn't it?
>
>As written by J.R.R. Tolkien, of course....
>
Michael...I don't think anybody has claimed that Middle-earth *was*
medieval, that is to say, copied on some medieval European society. What I
and many others have said is that Middle-earth in many respects has a
medieval "feel", that it is indeed in many ways reminiscent of the heroic
world of "The Song Of Roland", of Sir Thomas Malory, of "Beowulf" and so on.
Of course "Beowulf" is very early Medieval and founded on even older
material; but it is nevertheless medieval: a medieval celebration of "the
northern spirit" that Tolkien loved. But this medieval feel does of course
not make Middle-earth any kind of "genuine" medieval culture - there are
elements from all over the place.
Öjevind
Ekroquyan
> North and the fire of the South. O. English MIDDAN-GEARD, mediaeval
> MIDDEN-ERD, MIDDLE-ERD. Many reviewers seem to assume that Middle-
That reminds me of midgård, the land of the mortals in the norse
mythology. Middle-earth and midgård... I had never really thought of
this, but it really makes sense. (That's what you get from reading only
translated versions...)
--
)) Ekroquyan ((-----------)) ekro...@fastermail.com ((
(( I'm as serious as a rabid hamster in a wheelbarrow ))
Conrad Dunkerson
news:7n30g5$2m...@drn.newsguy.com...
> I see Mr. Dunkerson felt compelled to share his usual
> ill-informed and seditious opinions with us once again.
Seditious? Tsk Michael. For my action to be "seditious"
you would have to be the 'government in power' of the
newsgroup. While you may sometimes ACT as if this were the
case it is not. The ill-informed bit runs aground of the
fact that you proceeded to espouse every theory I said you
did... only, you claim most of them as facts. Which was
rather my point.
>>Balrogs have wings
> Well, since J.R.R. Tolkien says they do, I AM inclined to
> take his word over anyone else's. That's a fact, too.
>>Balrogs can fly
> Since J.R.R. Tolkien says they do,....
>>Balrogs can shapechange
> Since J.R.R. Tolkien says they do,....
>>Tolkien's Elves did not have pointed ears
> Since J.R.R. Tolkien didn't say they did, and in fact
> pointed out their very human appearance in several
> places,....
>>The Ring spoke on Mount Doom
> Tolkien wrote the passage.
>>The Elven and Dwarven races were generally friends
> Again, this is according to J.R.R. Tolkien.
Almost anyone else would admit that these issues were their
opinions and that there was some small possibility of them
being incorrect in their interpretation of what JRRT did or
did not "say" and what his "views" were. You all too often
presume to speak FOR Tolkien, putting your own opinions
forth as if they were his. That is why the 'Balrog Wings
FAQ' and other efforts you have made fail to maintain any
significant degree of impartiality. You assume your views
to be JRRTs and proceed from there.
Your opinions may be correct on some of the issues above.
However, on NONE of them is there conclusive proof for your
viewpoint... which makes stating it as fact somewhat
intolerant.
Conrad Dunkerson
news:37957489...@domain.com...
> 3) The construction could be taken literally. Here, we
> are saying that the balrogs were physically a tempest of
> fire.
> Even taken literally (which still seems to me an odd
> reading) I don't see a strong reason for thinking
> 'flight' unless one already had reason to believe they
> flew.
While I agree that it isn't too likely... I'm a big fan of
this reading because it is 'off the wall' but fits. It is
the most literal interpretation of "as a tempest of fire"
and can actually be used to construct a logical
alternative;
Consider that the distance from Angband to Lammoth is
hundreds of miles. For the Balrogs to have run or flown
that distance in the brief time the various versions (and
there are over a dozen) of the Hithlum passage seem to
indicate would make them incredibly fast... leading to all
sorts of consistency problems in instances where they did
not display this stunning speed when it would have been
useful.
IF however, we consider that the Balrogs were Maiar and
grant that they might still (then or always) have been able
to alter their form... it is possible to read the text as
saying they came literally as a firestorm. To, there are
indications elsewhere that when 'unclothed' the Ainur could
travel anywhere within ME in moments... explaining the
speed issue as neither the flying nor running versions can;
A group of balrogs, hiding in the deep vaults of Angband in
non-corporeal form, heard Morgoth's cry and came out of
their long hibernation / hiding to aid him. They
transported themselves directly to Lammoth, skipping over
Hithlum, and arrived in the form of a firestorm.
They might then have taken completely embodied forms to use
the 'whips of flame' mentioned. Whichever, my only point
is that the passage can be read in SEVERAL different (even
radically so) ways with nothing anywhere disproving them.
We can't really KNOW what JRRT intended - only form
opinions on what seems most likely to us.
rl...@my-deja.com
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:33:21 GMT, in article
<7n2fdh$4bn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> rl...@my-deja.com resolved to say for all to read and review:
>
> [snip the usual clueless simile argument]
>
> "I know this music. Let's change the rhythm."
We can only hope one day you will learn the letter.
Once again, MM runs out of arguments, dodges the issue and runs away.
All the better.
I'm getting good at it :-)
R.L.V.
~~#~~
"Call me Troll-slayer"
rl...@my-deja.com
defau...@domain.com wrote:
> RLV wrote:
>
> > You have better sight that MM. He has just said me that this point
of
> > the FAQ had never been discussed.
> >
>
> I think he meant, nobody had previously argued it *as a response to
> himposting that FAQ*, which could well be true although not really an
> indication of general opinion on the topic.
It may be, who knows when MM speaks literally, or when he uses similes
or metaphors?
About general opinion on the topic, MM doesn't care. That has been
proved by himself beyond all doubt. Well, what can I tell you that you
don't know?
> > > Rufus Polson
> > > "We're the second largest country upon this planet earth
> > > And if Russia keeps on shrinking, then soon we'll be first! (as
> > long as
> > > we keep Quebec)"
> > > --Arrogant Worms, 'Canada's really big'; should be sung with
intense
> >
> > > mock patriotism.
> >
> > Hummm. Could you expand on the quote in your sig, please?
> >
>
> Well, you asked for it.
> The Arrogant Worms are a Canadian comedy trio. They sing silly songs.
> “Canada’s Really Big” is their alternative Canadian national anthem.
> Our real national anthem kind of sucks, so up until now all we’ve
really
>
> had was the theme to “Hockey Night in Canada”! But now we have
> something that can be
> sung with pride.
> It may be that you were asking what basis they might have for
suggesting
<snip>
No, I asked about the song. It was real funny! Thank's.
The Arcane Chas
contemplation, Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> put finger to
keyboard and produced the following;
><WjmIvOAA...@the-arcane.demon.co.uk>, The resolved to say for all to read
>and review:
>>
<History of the development of the "Hithlum passage" snipped>
>
>Yes, but the Hithlum passage clearly denotes flying Balrogs.
To you (and others) it does - but not to all.
>Simply saying that
>Ungoliant's turning to flight suggests she flew is ridiculous.
It was *intended* to be ridiculous.
>It would be
>better to point to a passage similar to the Hithlum passage and show that the
>wording indeed suggests something other than flight.
Better perhaps (although to whom?) but not as funny.
>Of course, I can do this
>with the opposite effect:
Why am I not surprised? :-}
You may have misunderstood my purpose in entering into this thread. I
had no hope (or even intention) of changing your opinion. I merely
wished to lighten the tone a little.
Steuard Jensen
> sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu resolved to say for all to read and review:
> >Quoth Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org>:
> >> I'm quite certain the "the wings were a metaphor" arguments were
> >> grounded in the belief there were no wings. So many of the
> >> metaphorists said as much.
> >
> >Right... because for the most part the "metaphorists" were not clear
> >on the linguistic nature of the argument at the time. They said
> >"there were no wings" because they were only thinking of _normal_
> >wings (made of something more solid than "shadow-stuff")...
>
> This sentence makes absolutely no sense. What is a "normal" wing?
> Just anything "solid" or not made of "shadow-stuff" which happens to
> be wing-shaped? I'm afraid the dictionaries are not going to
> reflect that view.
When used in the context "part of a living thing which can be extended
out to its sides", I am willing to bet that most people's first
impression of the word "wing" _does_ involve some degree of solidity.
If I told a friend that some newly discovered animal had wings, I
would be very surprised if they said "now, are those wings actually
solid, or are they made of shadow?" That is all I meant by the word
"normal" in the above: the most familliar, everyday usage in this
context.
I'm not trying to prove whether or not Tolkien was using the word in
this way. I am _only_ making a statement about the way that I and
other "metaphorists" were interpreting it in the days of the War.
On another note, even if you disagreed with my use of the word
"normal", I think that my parenthesized clarification gave enough
information so that my sentence made at least _some_ sense.
> >...Quite a few intelligent and well-read people have advocated the
> >"metaphorist" position over time; did you really think that we all
> >thought there was _nothing_ there, in blatant contradiction with the
> >text?
> So, what you're saying is that truth is democratically determined
> after all? If "quite a few intelligent and well-read people" say a
> thing must be a certain way, then it is? I don't recall making any
> disparaging remarks about who insisted on the metaphorical view.
If you look carefully, you'll see that I did not claim that our
numbers meant that we were _right_. I was simply expressing surprise
that you were more willing to believe that we were all arguing for a
position that clearly contradicted the texts than you were to consider
the possibility that you misunderstood our position.
To clarify that, I have taken your comments in this thread to indicate
that you believe that the "metaphorists" hold a substantially
different idea of the nature of the Balrog's "wings" than yours: as I
read it, you indicate that "metaphorists" think that the Balrog's
"wings" were not there at all, whether as a shadow shaped like wings,
wings made of shadow, or anything else. [If this isn't your
impression, please disregard my comments until the next quoted
section, and feel free to give me a more accurate summary of your
impression of "metaphorist" views.]
This obviously contradicts the text, which states that the Balrog's
"wings", whatever that word refers to, were seen stretching from wall
to wall. As far as I can tell, your resolution of this apparent
contradiction was to decide that all of the "metaphorists" were either
unaware of this fallacy in their beliefs or were ignoring the text out
of spite.
My only aim in discussing this point is to suggest that you consider
the other resolution of the apparent contradiction: that your
impression of our beliefs is not quite accurate. You have accepted
this in at least one case: early in this thread, you pointed out that
my description of the nature of the Balrog's "wings" was substantially
the same as yours. I mention another explicitly below. The point is,
give us the benefit of the doubt if it seems that we're supporting an
untenable position: we probably aren't nearly as confused as you think
we are.
> I do make the effort to provide some sort of citations on occasion.
> It would be helpful if you had done the same here.
You're probably right, and I apologize for their lack. I was just
hesitant to include seven long articles for the sake of the one or two
lines that indicated that their impression of the Balrog's "wings" was
substantially the same as my own. Thanks for finding the examples you
included below.
I _can_ guide you to one citation from memory, however. If you search
on deja.com for articles by me (just put "Steuard" in the power search
Author line... it's an almost unique spelling) in the "Simile
vs. Metaphor" thread from spring 1998, you should get exactly two
matches. In the first of these, I attempted to restate both your
viewpoint and William Hicklin's. My restatement of Bill's position
essentially duplicated my own position on the issue: the "wings"
referred to a "palpable darkness" whose form was at least at some
points wing-shaped.
Bill Hicklin responded to my article to thank me for stating his
position so clearly, so _he_ at least thought that he agreed with my
summary. Interestingly enough, you also responded to my article, and
stated that the opinion I had described was _not_ Bill Hicklin's
opinion. At any rate, it was that post of his that I took as evidence
that his picture of the Balrog's wings agreed substantially with mine
(and hence with yours).
Below, I've taken excerpts from the articles you quoted. I've snipped
the insults and as much surrounding text as I could while preserving
the points I include below.
> Here is one of Casey Foster's articles:
[snip]
> As has been stated in no less than a hundred posts, wings are a
> metphor for shadow.
If you try to look at this statement from my point of view, you'll see
that this _supports_ my assertion that Casey's idea of the Balrogs'
wings is in good agreement with my own. When Casey says here that
"wings are a metaphor for shadow", he is not claiming that the shadow
was not shaped like wings (after all, using the word "wings" would be
pretty silly if it didn't have _any_ connection to the subject), and
he is _clearly_ indicating that a shadow was present. I would claim
that there is no real distinction in opinion between "shadow shaped
like wings" and "wings made of shadow-stuff"; I suspect that you will
find few examples of anyone arguing against that claim.
> Here is one of Bill Hicklin's articles:
>
> Michael Martinez wrote:
> > In article <3528E38A...@gamewood.net>, soli...@gamewood.net
> > wrote:
> > >But if you insist on it, fine: I'll submit that substantial,
> > >bone-and-hide (and feathers?) wings are contrary to
> > >insubstantial shadow. As you point out, simile and metaphor
> > >can be used together, although this confuses some people. Like
> > >the confusion that arises from combining the simile "like vast
> > >wings" with the metaphor "wings." There were no wings.
[snip]
> > >There was a vast spreading shadow that reached out in a
> > >winglike fashion. I don't expect you to accept this, Michael.
> > >But you could at least admit that one doesn't have to be a
> > >drooling idiot to accept it.
Note here that Bill seems to think that when you said "wings" you
meant "bone-and-hide" wings: he thinks that you would not accept the
idea that a "shadow reaching out in a winglike fashion" is consistent
with the text. As above, I contend that there is no substantial
difference between "a shadow reaching out in a winglike fashion" and
"wings made of shadow", especially when you consider that Bill said
the shadow was some sort of "palpable darkness". The point is, Bill
is describing here exactly the same position that you and I have
already agreed upon.
> Here is one of Matt Gable's articles:
>
> Bill's analysis is good. He has shown that Tolkien's words in the Moria
> passage mean that the wings were figurative. The text does not place
> literal wings on the Balrog of Moria.
This quote certainly doesn't prove that Matt shares the mental image
of the Balrog that you and I do. However, note that Matt carefully
says "the text does not put LITERAL wings on the Balrog": he is
clearly drawing a distinction between "wings" and "literal wings".
This passage does not indicate what he thinks that distinction is, but
if you guess that he means for "literal wings" to indicate
"bone-and-hide wings", then it seems likely that he agrees with us.
After all, if this _is_ what he meant by "literal wings", then "wings
made of shadow" are precisely "wings, but not literal wings".
> John Alcock did make the embarrassing statement that the wings were just a
> metaphor for the shape of the shadow. I'll give you his support there, and
> possibly Ron Ploeg, too.
>
> >I think this strongly supports my claim that virtually all
> >"metaphorists" believe that the word "wings" referrs to the "wings of
> >shadow-stuff" around the Balrog.
>
> Sorry, but I just shot that down.
I'd have to disagree, considering my discussion above: using only
articles that _you_ chose, I have indicated evidence (from
"convincing" to "strongly suggestive" in different cases) that all of
the people you cited agreed with our shared impression of the Balrog's
"wings" as "wings of shadow" or the equivelent "palpable shadow shaped
like wings".
The point is, just about all of us agree that there was a shadowy
something around the Balrog that stretched out like two vast wings.
We're just using different language to describe it. I don't see that
any harm is done by acknowledging both ways of saying the same thing
in your FAQ.
Steuard Jensen
Michael Martinez
defau...@domain.com resolved to say for all to read and review:
>
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>As per usual, plenty of snips here.
>> of putting them together as a whole. Just try it.
>>
>
>I repeat, I find the fact of stylistic unity in a sentence
>unremarkable.
Stylistic unity has nothing to do with it. The point is whether the rewritten
sentence makes sense. If it doesn't the argument fails.
>> Specifically, I have pointed out that Tolkien used the phrase to
>> describe the onslought of the dragons:
>>
>> ...and so sudden and ruinous was the onset of that dreadful fleet
>> that the host of the Valar was driven back, for the coming of the
>> dragons was with great thunder, and lightning, and a tempest of fire.
>> (From "Of the Voyage of Earendil..." in THE SILMARILLION)
>>
>> >...However, the phrase does not seem to me to be at all related to
>> >issues of flight.
>>
>
>The subject of this sentence, "the phrase", indicated the final element
>in the Hithlum passage rather than your dragon reference--as I suspect
>you were perfectly well aware (although I could be wrong).
The point is that we can determine what Tolkien was referring to by seeing how
used the phrase elsewhere. "Tempest of fire" refers to fire in the sky,
literally coming down out of the sky. The dragons are accompanied by one
(because they breathe the fire) and the Balrogs ARE one (because they are
flaming and flying).
>> Conveniently not. However, it should indicate even to someone who
>> might wish to argue that the winged, flying dragons were neither
>> winged nor flying that there was a rain of fire. The imagery of the words
>> preceding the phrase includes thunder and lightning.
>>
>> >...It looks to me, as I said, like a poetic commonplace, almost a
>> >deliberate formula...
>>
>> Tolkien is not very formulaic, however, and his prose is hardly
>> commonplace. You'll not find much in the literature which matches
>> his idiom and style.
>>
>
>I did not say his prose was commonplace. This is clearly an issue of
>interpretation rather than fact, but I see it as an appeal to certain
>high, archaic styles of writing, such as but not limited to the OE
>poetry he was so fond of, in which standardized images (generally kept
>fresh by variation) were used. By using images in deliberately
>formulaic fashion, he was able to conjure the epic mood associated with
>that sort of technique. This is not, in our current era, a remotely
>common method of writing--and I believe he brings to it a great deal of
>skill and knowledge, and is able to invoke the style without allowing
>his language to become stale.
That doesn't change the fact that the Hithlum passage has Balrogs flying in the
sky.
>> >...It is at this point that my argument with respect to other
>> >occasions Tolkien used very similar formulas in circumstances
>> >of similar elevation of language, clearly referring to non-flying
>> >beings, becomes relevant. For Tolkien this doesn't seem to have
>> >been a simile particularly connected with flight.
>>
>> You need to show that.
>
>I quoted the quotes. You dismissed them on the basis that I did not
>have an accompanying argument relating to the whole sentence. I provided
>one. You now dismiss them, if I understand correctly, on the basis that
>you don't see "as a tempest of fire" as a simile, whereas my citations
>clearly are similes...
It's not on the basis of what I see or don't see. It's on the basis of what
does and doesn't constitute a simile. That your argument doesn't work means you
have NOT shown the assertions you're making to be true and accurate.
>...Since the constructions in my citations are similes and very similar to
>the "as a tempest of fire" under discussion, I see no particular reason to
>reject the idea that "as a tempest of fire" could be a simile...
It's not a simile because Tolkien didn't use it as a simile. At least, all the
evidence provided so far indicates he did not do so. Flaming Balrogs coming out
of the sky are not unlike a rain or storm of fire, so the phrase is not acting
similetically.
>...Elsewhere in this post I have a brief discussion of what happens to the
>phrase if it's *not* a simile--the gist being that IMO, the result of that
>doesn't strongly suggest flight either.
>The quotations in question:
>“now men leaped from the ships to the quays of the Harlond and swept
>north like a storm.”
This is a simile unrelated to the Balrog's passage. It sheds no light on the
issue.
>“they drove through the hosts of Isengard as a wind among grass.”
Again, this has no relevance to the issue. Citing irrelevant passages doesn't
achieve anything.
>> The language may or may not be poetic, but it MUST have meaning and
>> coherence. Otherwise it is a pointless distraction.
>>
>
>The language is certainly poetic. This is (ahem) a fact. Whether the
>meaning of that poetic language works on a literal level or not is worth
>discussing.
Nor is it the point I was making. I said it MUST have meaning and coherence.
Literalness is not important to meaning and coherence. If you want to show that
the Hithlum passage can mean something other than that the Balrogs flew to
Lammoth, you need to provide an example of a meaningful and coherent
interpretation that doesn't involve flight. No one has done this yet.
>> There is nothing mystical about the fact that Balrogs got around
>> Middle-earth. The narrative in THE SILMARILLION is essentially a
>> historical one. It doesn't describe the undescribable.
>>
>
>The Silmarillion's narrative is quite different in different sections.
That is irrelevant to the point above.
>> No, not necessarily. The history of THE SILMARILLION is long and
>> complex, and Tolkien rewrote some of the stories several times.
>>
>
>Well, yes, but since the Hithlum passage is the only one that has been
>found from any version anywhere, anytime, that has been put forward as
>an indication of flight, then the passage is both the first and last
>such suggestion in any version we can conceivably put together.
That doesn't make it any less valid. There is only one passage anywhere which
says Melkor fled from Tulkas' laughter. There is only one passage anywhere
which says Sam stopped conveying information to Merry, Pippin, and Fredegar
after he was caught spying by Gandalf. There is only one passage anywhere which
says that Smaug ate ponies brought to Erebor by Thorin and Company.
Shall we doubt the worth and meaning of these passages because Tolkien didn't
think to reiterate their points elsewhere?
>> >...Balrogs had featured in the story before, but never defined as
>> >flyers. OK, so now the author wants to bring in for the reader the
>> >idea that they flew. This seems like something you'd need to make
>> >clearer than you would a reference to them flying after the reader
>> >already knew that they flew.
>>
>> But you're not looking at WHEN the Hithlum passage was written. It
>> was written after THE LORD OF THE RINGS -- after Tolkien had decided
>> to put wings on the Balrogs. In seeking for reasons to disregard the
>> obvious, you're overlooking way too much information.
>>
>
>My statement is based on the thesis that the Silmarillion was intended
>to be capable of functioning as a stand-alone work. You have more
>knowledge than I about whether this is a plausible thesis. If you know
>information tending to negate it, I'll be happy to be enlightened.
>Otherwise, discussions of LOTR are not relevant. In any case, I was
>under the impression that you yourself didn't consider the issue of
>wings to be in itself an indicator of flight. Changed your mind?
You're making absolutely no sense here whatsoever. THE SILMARILLION was not
written by J.R.R. Tolkien. And it certainly wasn't written with Balrogs as the
primary characters of the stories. Winged dragons are mentioned only once in
the whole book. By your logic, if taken as a standalone work, THE SILMARILLION
therefore doesn't substantiate itself on the claim that there were winged
dragons.
It's not a standalone work. At one time it was intended to be so, but that was
before Tolkien wrote THE HOBBIT and THE LORD OF THE RINGS. By the time he had
finished LOTR his intention was to make those two books compatible with a
heavily amended and revised SILMARILLION (this was the true trilogy, btw). The
third book was never completed. Christopher Tolkien assembled a facsimile of
the third book after his father died because there was such a passionate demand
for it from his father's readers.
During the course of writing THE LORD OF THE RINGS Tolkien changed the nature
(and physical description) of the Balrogs substantively. They evolved from
Melkor's bred/created demons to corrupted Maiar, spiritual creatures which
assumed "physical" shapes of terror and darkness within Ea. These new Balrogs
had wings and flew. Whether they needed the wings for flight is indeterminable
(by us) from the published texts.
>> Do you understand what simile is? I'm getting the impression that you
>> do not. I foresee another lengthy discussion of simile and metaphor
>> looming on the horizon....
>
>I guarantee you I will not participate in such a discussion.
>
>> >...but are instead quite standard general usage for the sort of
>> >elevated language we are dealing with. I feel "winged speed",
>> >while it does mention wings, if anything suggests a comparison
>> >to flight which would be unnecessary/inappropriate if actual flight
>> >were involved. And, finally, I find that "like a tempest" is a
>> >simile of a sort that Tolkien used more than once
>> >referring to non-flying things;
>>
>> It was "as a tempest", and you have not shown that it is, in fact, a
>> simile.
>
>"as a tempest", quite.
>Well, let's see. I can see three possible ways to take the phrase.
>1) "as" could be taken as meaning "taking the role of"--as in "Ojevind
>arrived at the costume ball as Hamlet (to applause, rave reviews etc.)"
>This isn't too likely :-).
>
>2) The construction could be a simile--one, perhaps, with a fairly close
>connection to what's actually happening, but a simile none the less. In
>such a case, the word "tempest" can be taken in its full meaning, but
>it's only an image--no literal tempest, of fire or otherwise, is taken
>to be present. In such a case, the quotations I have been citing are
>relevant to the degree of connection one takes it as having with flight.
However, the citations you've provided are NOT relevant. They would only be
relevant if you could show that "as a tempest of fire" is indeed a simile.
>3) The construction could be taken literally. Here, we are saying that
>the balrogs were physically a tempest of fire. Given this, quotations
>relating to similes would not relate. At the same time, "tempest of
>fire" is evidently a single phenomenon. But there isn't, in real life,
>any such thing as a "tempest of fire" as far as I know--it's essentially
>a coined phrase if taken literally...
Real life has nothing to do with it. We're discussing a fantasy world, and in
that fantasy world there is indeed another passage where "tempest of fire" is
used literally to refer to fire coming down out of the sky.
>...This is good--it allows us to perceive "tempest of fire" in terms such
>that a group of balrogs could literally be one. The resulting
>perception/definition, though, has to be missing a fair number of elements
>normally included in a tempest, such as precipitation, massive clouds,
>lightning, high winds.
[snip]
Incorrect. Your counter-argument fails here.
>> Basically, you've done a magngificent job of convincing yourself the
>> Balrogs didn't fly (or have wings, I suppose)
>
>I see these as two separate topics; I had thought you did too.
And why shouldn't I?
>> , but you're argument is not coherent.
>
>I tend to think it is. BTW, that's "your", not "you're". Pet peeve.
Your right about the spelling. However, you're argument remains incoherent.
>> You've made many assumptions
>
>Well, I could say "I assume nothing", like a certain prominent NG figure
>has been known to.
I only say that when I assume nothing. Would you care to point to the last time
I said that with respect to this current discussion?
>...However, I don't think it's really possible to evaluate meanings in a
>language without making some assumptions. You make assumptions based on
>previous experience. Otherwise you have to reinvent the world anew every
>day, which may sound lovely and childlike, but there's something to be
>said for not being 1 year old anymore.
That is precisely what making assumptions does: reinvent the world. Language is
intended to be a common medium, a means by which two or more people can
communicate. Hence, it MUST have some standards or else all interchange becomes
meaningless. You can't just keep making up and using your own meanings and get
anywhere in communicating with other people.
>> , you've not supported your conclusions with
>> relevant citations and logic
>
>I tend to think I have.
And yet you haven't. That's the point.
>> , and you have not really tried to show how the
>> sentence CAN work without meaning that the Balrogs didn't fly.
>>
>
>I don't *want* to show how the sentence can work *without* meaning the
>Balrogs *didn't* fly.
Then you have no point to make. That's the only way to settle this.
Discussing irrelevant citations about men jumping off ships isn't going to
advance anyone's argument.
Michael Martinez
>
>You called me a liar.
Really? The reference escapes me. In which message did I do this?
Michael Martinez
<xlhl3.2521$ip4....@nntpserver.swip.net>, "Öjevind resolved to say for all to
read and review:
>
>
>Michael Martinez hath written:
>
><snip>
>>
>>So, go ahead, tell me again how Middle-earth is -- IN FACT -- Medieval.
>>I'm sure we can find all sorts of agreement from the author. He would
>>never have pictured his stories being set, say, 6000 years in the past
>>in an IMAGINARY TIME. That's just MY opinion after all, isn't it?
>>
>>As written by J.R.R. Tolkien, of course....
>>
>
>
>Michael...I don't think anybody has claimed that Middle-earth *was*
>medieval, that is to say, copied on some medieval European society.
Please spare me the straw man arguments. I haven't said at any time that anyone
has stated Middle-earth was based on a specific Medieval European culture.
Mike Scott Rohan wrote the following:
The fact remains that the overall culture of Middle-Earth is basically
medieval -- using, for example, mail armour rather than the more advanced
plate.
Now, if this isn't a declaration of the medievality of Middle-earth, then what
is it?
Middle-earth was NOT medieval -- not in design, look, or feel. It SEEMS
Medieval because that is what you want to see in it. There is no shame in
admitting as much.
Arkady
<defau...@domain.com> wrote in message
news:37953248...@domain.com...
> RLV wrote:
>
> > You have better sight that MM. He has just said me that this point of
> > the FAQ had never been discussed.
> >
>
> I think he meant, nobody had previously argued it *as a response to
> himposting that FAQ*, which could well be true although not really an
> indication of general opinion on the topic.
>
> > > "We're the second largest country upon this planet earth
> > > And if Russia keeps on shrinking, then soon we'll be first! (as
> > long as
> > > we keep Quebec)"
> > > --Arrogant Worms, 'Canada's really big'; should be sung with intense
> >
> > > mock patriotism.
> >
> > Hummm. Could you expand on the quote in your sig, please?
> >
>
> Well, you asked for it.
> The Arrogant Worms are a Canadian comedy trio. They sing silly songs.
> "Canada's Really Big" is their alternative Canadian national anthem.
> Our real national anthem kind of sucks, so up until now all we've really
>
> had was the theme to "Hockey Night in Canada"! But now we have
> something that can be
> sung with pride.
> It may be that you were asking what basis they might have for suggesting
>
> something in a Worms song rather than my own statement, I couldn't say
> for sure--and since it's comedy rather
> than serious political commentary, I'm not willing to hold them to any
> rigorous standards. Presumably, though, they are referring to the
> splintering off of various areas which, while not part of Mother Russia
> itself, were part of the old USSR and in some cases part of the older
> empire Russia controlled. The area of firm Russian political hegemony
> seems to have been shrinking. I don't think you could draw these
> careful
> distinctions and still leave a funny line. Man, I've been getting
> careful
> how I say things--must be all these discussions with MM.
*LOL* fear not, I understand.
>
> Anyway, it goes:
>
> When I look around me, I can't believe what I see
> It seems as if this country has lost its will to live!
> The economy is lousy, we barely have an army,
> But we can still stand proudly cuz Canada's really big!
<snip>
If only everyone had an anthem like this. Perhaps it would help to diffuse
nationalism a little.
*Arkady strolls off, trying to think of a spoof for 'The Red Flag'*
O'Neill Quigley
Quite an excellent argument-summary of the Balrog wings debate.
Nice one Steuard, and well done. Like the signing off too...
> I hope these comments have at least given you a feel for the Debate
> that Was, an appreciation for the Questions that Are, and an
> understanding of the Uncertainties that will Always Be.
Referring to Faramir's evening meal observances in Ithilien with Frodo,
I believe?
Arkady
<rl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7n5218$39v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <7n3263$2p...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:33:21 GMT, in article
> <7n2fdh$4bn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > rl...@my-deja.com resolved to say for all to read and review:
> >
> > [snip the usual clueless simile argument]
> >
> > "I know this music. Let's change the rhythm."
>
> We can only hope one day you will learn the letter.
>
> Once again, MM runs out of arguments, dodges the issue and runs away.
> All the better.
>
> I'm getting good at it :-)
Together we seem to have kicked him from every thread in aft. Seems that he
can't take having the holes in his arguments probed.
--
Arkady.
"No, I am NOT the spark to the petrol drum."
Michael Martinez, 11/7/99
RLV
>
> Quoth Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org>:
> > sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu resolved to say for all to read and review:
> > >Quoth Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org>:
<lotsasnippa>
> The point is, just about all of us agree that there was a shadowy
> something around the Balrog that stretched out like two vast wings.
> We're just using different language to describe it. I don't see that
> any harm is done by acknowledging both ways of saying the same thing
> in your FAQ.
I see your point Steuard , and I do agree with you. After all, it is
just common sense.
Said that, I commend you for your heroic effort against all hope in the
best Ragnarok style... but shouldn't you be studying?
Good luck with that exam. :-)
Mike Kew
>Yes. Russia has not 'shrunk' since 1918. Or do you mean the economy?
How do you count Chechnya?
Okay, okay, I was just going...
--
Mike Kew
Steuard Jensen
> Said that, I commend you for your heroic effort against all hope in the
> best Ragnarok style... but shouldn't you be studying?
>
> Good luck with that exam. :-)
Thanks. I needed that. :)
Steuard Jensen
Steuard Jensen
> Steuard Jensen wrote:
>
> Quite an excellent argument-summary of the Balrog wings debate.
Why thank you. I thought a consensus-centered summary would be a good
thing to have.
> > I hope these comments have at least given you a feel for the Debate
> > that Was, an appreciation for the Questions that Are, and an
> > understanding of the Uncertainties that will Always Be.
>
> Referring to Faramir's evening meal observances in Ithilien with Frodo,
> I believe?
But of course. :)
Steuard Jensen
RLV
>
> On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:29:22 +0200, in article
> read and review:
> >
> >Michael Martinez hath written:
<snip>
> >Michael...I don't think anybody has claimed that Middle-earth *was*
> >medieval, that is to say, copied on some medieval European society.
>
> Please spare me the straw man arguments. I haven't said at any time that anyone
> has stated Middle-earth was based on a specific Medieval European culture.
LOL.
Welcome Öjevind to the straw man conspiracy!
<snip>
> Middle-earth was NOT medieval -- not in design, look, or feel. It SEEMS
> Medieval because that is what you want to see in it. There is no shame in
> admitting as much.
If so, please tell us what elements of technology, weaponry, clothing,
present in ME are not found in Middle-Ages.
Are you unable to answer such a simple question? There is no shame in
admitting as much.
RLV
>
> On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 00:19:37 -0700, in article <37957489...@domain.com>,
> defau...@domain.com resolved to say for all to read and review:
> >
> >Michael Martinez wrote:
<snip the usual "my opinions are facts and yours are irrelevant" by MM>
> Nor is it the point I was making. I said it MUST have meaning and coherence.
> Literalness is not important to meaning and coherence. If you want to show that
> the Hithlum passage can mean something other than that the Balrogs flew to
> Lammoth, you need to provide an example of a meaningful and coherent
> interpretation that doesn't involve flight. No one has done this yet.
"The fiery balrogs came to Lammoth and caused a violent tumult"
Easy. Do I get a prize? :-)
R.L.V.
~~#~~
"Call me troll-slayer"
defau...@domain.com
> On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 00:31:16 -0700, in article
> defau...@domain.com resolved to say for all to read and review:
> >Michael Martinez wrote:
> >
> >> A dodge is a dodge.
> >
> >You called me a liar.
>
> Really? The reference escapes me. In which message did I do this?
>
Within the context you snipped, your line above, "A dodge is a dodge",
clearly was calling me a liar.
I can’t understand how you might consider it otherwise. Certainly I
find it difficult to fathom, given my specific advance request and
careful reinclusion of context in my post, how your question "In which
message did I do this?" could be anything but disingenuous mockery. I
will however, despite my doubts, treat this as a serious question.
I’ll go through the logic slowly.
When you said “a dodge is a dodge” it was, presumably, meant to have
*something* to do with my post to which you were replying.
The only thing I can think of would be a claim that in refusing to
discuss
paraphrases, I was using “a dodge”.
This would imply very strongly that the motivation I professed, which
did not involve dodging anything, was not my true motivation.
Normally, saying that somebody’s real motivation and the one they
profess
are two different things, is a claim that what they profess is untrue,
i.e.
a lie.
One might in some circumstances consider it, instead, to be just a
careless, knee-jerk
comment whose implications had not been considered.
However, as it happens, I had specifically asked you not to make such a
comment.
I explained that I would consider it a claim that I was lying.
I assumed that, before making such a comment, anyone who actually read
the
entirety of my post would stop and consider whether it would really
constitute such a claim or not.
In order to be just a careless comment whose implications had not been
considered, then, it would have to be the product of a complete refusal
to
actually read my post through before responding to it.
Presumably then, you were either (a) calling me a liar, (b) responding
to
my post without actually reading it through, (c) saying it just because
I’d
asked you not to, to see what my response would be or just to annoy me,
or
(d) for some reason, despite your obviously high intelligence, incapable
of
drawing the connection between saying that someone means something other
than what he’s saying and saying that someone is lying. Last I heard
that
was the definition.
Now, you can call me a liar. I won’t even claim it’s a flame--the whole
net-jargon thing turns me off anyway. However, it isn’t polite. And
since
you only know me from a series of posts in which I have gone out of my
way
to be scrupulously polite, to qualify my statements carefully, and to
generally treat you and (to the extent possible when holding a contrary
opinion) your views with respect, I don’t see what reason you might have
for assuming me to be one.
Thus, if I state an opinion I do not understand why you would wish to
make
comments suggesting that I am concealing my true opinion, perhaps for
‘dodgy’ reasons. Unless you can explain to me what you might possibly
have
meant by “A dodge is a dodge” that wasn’t intended to cast such
aspersions
on me, I must consider that you were intentionally saying something
about
my intellectual integrity. Doing so for no reason would be behaviour I
cannot respect.
Actually, if you simply assure me that you had no such intent, I will
accept your statement.
I’m sorry to go on at such length about five words, but you did ask, and
such things are important to me--I’ve gotten into considerable trouble
in
the past because I refused to lie, and I expect to again in the future.
I
go to considerable lengths to maintain my word as good, and I object
very
strongly to the perception that my word is being sullied. People could
call me a fool, call my logic fractured or nonexistent (as in fact you
have), call me ignorant, wrongheaded, a flamer, whatever--it won’t
affect
me that much. Casting doubts on my honour will tend to disturb me. I
am perfectly well aware that this sounds incredibly naive. Be it so. A
simple reply will get more respect from me than one which seems
calculated to score points.
Rufus Polson
Michael Martinez
<YAM7HMAp...@the-arcane.demon.co.uk>, The resolved to say for all to read
and review:
>
>In article <7n3pa4$10...@drn.newsguy.com>, but only after serious
>contemplation, Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> put finger to
>keyboard and produced the following;
>>
>
>To you (and others) it does - but not to all.
The Empire State Building is clearly a tall buildig, but that doesn't mean there
isn't someone willing to call it an anthill or something.
>You may have misunderstood my purpose in entering into this thread. I
>had no hope (or even intention) of changing your opinion. I merely
>wished to lighten the tone a little.
Perhaps I did, but then you have to consider that I spend as little time as
possible in each news group. I am not looking for humor in the dreaded threads.