A shadow, like wings
Patrick Moore
In Frodo's dream in Bombadil's house: Suddenly a shadow, like the
shape of great wings, passed across the moon. The figure lifted his arms
and a light flashed from the staff that he wielded. A mighty eagle swept
down and bore him away.
In Moria: His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it
reached out like two vast wings.
In both cases, JRRT uses the simile form -- "like" wings. In the first
case, obviously the wings are really eagle wings. In the second case,
it's not so certain.
Don't get me wrong. I'm sure this will have been beaten into the ground
over the years, and I certainly don't think I've discovered something
new. But I was struck by it and, for some reason, decided to post it.
Please ignore. I'm still just a newbie, after all.
Patrick
Scarlet Heart
"Patrick Moore" <mo...@odf.org> wrote:
> Just reading, and was struck by something...
------------
There are some here who would like to make that literal. I am not one
of them, but thought I'd give warning....
------------
> Please ignore. I'm still just a newbie, after all.
------------
Well hopefully when this is read by others, you won't be a
Black'n'Bluebie from the opposition. Good luck.
For the record: no wings (IMO).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Patrick Moore
news:8eq649$vd6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <Ll0Q4.200104$AT6.2...@dfw-read.news.verio.net>,
> "Patrick Moore" <mo...@odf.org> wrote:
>
> > Just reading, and was struck by something...
>
> ------------
>
> There are some here who would like to make that literal. I am not one
> of them, but thought I'd give warning....
>
> ------------
>
> > Please ignore. I'm still just a newbie, after all.
>
> ------------
>
>
> Well hopefully when this is read by others, you won't be a
> Black'n'Bluebie from the opposition. Good luck.
I'm not worried. I think everybody's just gonna say "We've already
talked that out. No need to go back over it again." On the other hand,
I might receive a gentle reminder that information about wings of any
type -- the real type or the literary device type -- is [Censored].
And that's fine by me.
Patrick
david campbell
>
> Just reading, and was struck by something...
>
> shape of great wings, passed across the moon. The figure lifted his arms
> and a light flashed from the staff that he wielded. A mighty eagle swept
> down and bore him away.
>
> In Moria: His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it
> reached out like two vast wings.
>
> In both cases, JRRT uses the simile form -- "like" wings. In the first
> case, obviously the wings are really eagle wings. In the second case,
> it's not so certain.
>
> Don't get me wrong. I'm sure this will have been beaten into the ground
> over the years, and I certainly don't think I've discovered something
> new. But I was struck by it and, for some reason, decided to post it.
>
>
Frodo may ......or may not have wings. It has been suggested that
because his wings are never, ever mentioned in the text he must have
been hiding them the whole time and that he flutters around when none of
the other characters are awake. It is for this reason that he is
referred to as elf-like in some parts of the book because all elves have
wings as you know.
d. campbell
p.s. If you are looking for a serious response to your post then Steuard
Jensen has a comprehensive FAQ that deals with the 'Wing Debate' and
other contentious issues. You will no doubt be directed there by someone
much more helpful than myself.
p.p.s. Welcome to AFT and please keep holding out for the smart people.
:)
Mika-Petri Lauronen
wrote:
>Just reading, and was struck by something...
>
>In Frodo's dream in Bombadil's house: Suddenly a shadow, like the
>shape of great wings, passed across the moon. The figure lifted his arms
>and a light flashed from the staff that he wielded. A mighty eagle swept
>down and bore him away.
>
>In Moria: His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it
>reached out like two vast wings.
>
>In both cases, JRRT uses the simile form -- "like" wings. In the first
>case, obviously the wings are really eagle wings. In the second case,
>it's not so certain.
>
A good observation. My opinion is that in the latter case the wings
are Balrog wings, not eagle wings... ;0)
*******************************************************
* Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try. -- YODA -- *
*******************************************************
Mika-Petr...@oulu.fi
Patrick Moore
>
> Patrick Moore wrote:
> >
[snip]
>
> p.s. If you are looking for a serious response to your post then Steuard
> Jensen has a comprehensive FAQ that deals with the 'Wing Debate' and
> other contentious issues. You will no doubt be directed there by someone
> much more helpful than myself.
Nope. No serious response expected. Primarily because I've read the
FAQ, and lurked long enough to know, from the outside looking in, how
much this has been discussed.
>
> p.p.s. Welcome to AFT and please keep holding out for the smart people.
> :)
And as far as LOTR goes, pretty much everybody is smarter than me. :-)
Patrick
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
>
>Frodo may ......or may not have wings. It has been suggested that
>because his wings are never, ever mentioned in the text he must have
>been hiding them the whole time and that he flutters around when none of
>the other characters are awake. It is for this reason that he is
>referred to as elf-like in some parts of the book because all elves have
>wings as you know.
LOL!
Öjevind
Freaksaus
>Just reading, and was struck by something...
>
>In Frodo's dream in Bombadil's house: Suddenly a shadow, like the
>shape of great wings, passed across the moon. The figure lifted his arms
>and a light flashed from the staff that he wielded. A mighty eagle swept
>down and bore him away.
<SNIP>
That was exactly the passage that made me believe the Balrog DID have
wings. Still all IMHO.
>Don't get me wrong. I'm sure this will have been beaten into the ground
>over the years, and I certainly don't think I've discovered something
>new. But I was struck by it and, for some reason, decided to post it.
I haven't read this before and I have been reading the groups since
summer 1999.
Freek
grimgard
Patrick Moore wrote:
> Just reading, and was struck by something...
>
> In Frodo's dream in Bombadil's house: Suddenly a shadow, like the
> shape of great wings, passed across the moon. The figure lifted his arms
> and a light flashed from the staff that he wielded. A mighty eagle swept
> down and bore him away.
>
> In Moria: His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it
> reached out like two vast wings.
>
> In both cases, JRRT uses the simile form -- "like" wings. In the first
> case, obviously the wings are really eagle wings. In the second case,
> it's not so certain.
>
> Don't get me wrong. I'm sure this will have been beaten into the ground
> over the years, and I certainly don't think I've discovered something
> new. But I was struck by it and, for some reason, decided to post it.
>
> Please ignore. I'm still just a newbie, after all.
>
> Patrick
I've been on the newsgroup for at least three or four years now and I can't
recall the citation about Frodo's dream in Bombadil's house ever having been
mentioned before in the Balrog wings debate. It's an interesting point (and
the first new one I've seen on this subject for quite a while), but it's
still, in my opinion, inconclusive. I have no idea how many times Tolkien
used the word 'like' throughout the course of his writings, but unless you
could show that the original simile turned out to be actually a description
of the real-life object being used for comparison in every other case, it's
still always going to be a possibility that he meant one thing in one place
and something else in another place. In other words, it may be indicative,
but it's not definitive. IMHO.
grimgard
PaulB
writes:
>> In both cases, JRRT uses the simile form -- "like" wings. In the first
>> case, obviously the wings are really eagle wings. In the second case,
>> it's not so certain.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong. I'm sure this will have been beaten into the ground
>> over the years, and I certainly don't think I've discovered something
>> new. But I was struck by it and, for some reason, decided to post it.
>>
>> Please ignore. I'm still just a newbie, after all.
>>
>> Patrick
>
>I've been on the newsgroup for at least three or four years now and I can't
>recall the citation about Frodo's dream in Bombadil's house ever having been
>mentioned before in the Balrog wings debate. It's an interesting point (and
>the first new one I've seen on this subject for quite a while), but it's
>still, in my opinion, inconclusive. I have no idea how many times Tolkien
>used the word 'like' throughout the course of his writings, but unless you
>could show that the original simile turned out to be actually a description
>of the real-life object being used for comparison in every other case, it's
>still always going to be a possibility that he meant one thing in one place
>and something else in another place. In other words, it may be indicative,
>but it's not definitive. IMHO.
>
>grimgard
>
>
First off, I'm definitely a pro-wings person.
It might be pointed out that in the case of the dream the "like" seems to
be used to show a non-committal forshadowing of an actual thing. "A shadow
like the shape of great wings" raises the tension cause by our not knowing it
is an eagle, but then we are told it is an eagle two sentences latter. Tolkien
seems to use this so that he can extend our not knowing for effect rather than
telling us off the bat that there is an eagle flying over head."
The same could be said of the passage regarding the balrog. Not knowing
what could cast a shadow like that makes causes a degree of dread in us that is
then resolved by the specific mention of wings a few lines latter. If Tolkien
had mentioned the wings straight off we would have had a better picture of the
balrog immediately but at the same time we would have lost that added tension
cause by insinuating something and letting our minds work on it first.
Assume for a moment that the wings a real then think on this: If
Tolkien had mentioned the wings to begin with, would you imagine them as big as
the wings of a creature that had cast a "shadow about it [that] reached out
like two vast wings"? Writting about them this way first, as shadows, makes
them seem bigger to me than the lines I can imagine being written with specific
mention of the wings at the first chance.
The use of a technique once and then the finding of similar phasing again
with such a similar feel points to (but no, does not prove,) the second
instance being a use of the same technique. Has anyone else come across any
other similar occurences? If there were two more, especially if wings weren't
the shadows involved, I would then consider this proof of a writing
technique/style and say that balrogs definitely have wings, no argument. For
now I will continue to say IMHO balrogs have wings.
As an aside to this argument, I've never heard mention what physical thing
is thought to have cast such a shadow if no wings were present. I imagine it
had to come from the balrog in some way and I can't think of any other
appendages that would do the same thing. My own interpretation is that
"reached out" is a discription of the balrog expanding his wings at that moment
but the first thing noticed in the gloom is the shadow they cast rather than
the wings themselves. Small Light Source (Torches) + Largish Object (Wings of
a larger than man creature) + Gloom of Darkness = impression of vast shadow
which overwhelms impression of physical wings which are still hard make out in
gloom.
Breathe
Peace
PB
"... the essence of myth [is] that it have no taint of allegory to the maker
and yet should suggest incipient allegories to the reader..."
C. S. Lewis, having read "The Lay of Leithian"
Aris Katsaris
PaulB <pbac...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20000504180214...@nso-ce.aol.com...
> As an aside to this argument, I've never heard mention what physical
thing
> is thought to have cast such a shadow if no wings were present.
No physical thing. It's often been seen in Tolkien that the Shadow that
some beings carry about them is a sort of mobile darkness, which
almost has a material presence and isn't caused by the simple absense
of light. For the most extreme example, check out the Darkness of
Ungoliant...
Thing is that the simile could be used both to describe wings, and
to describe non-wings. Therefore it must be excluded from my
considerations, and everything else in all the rest of Tolkien's
writings show that the Balrogs had no wings - firstmost that he
doesn't mention wings when he describes them, second that
he has atleast two balrogs die through falling from high places...
Aris Katsaris
James Maxon
Please consider it carefully before you say yea or nay. Anyway, that's my
not-altogether-humble opinion.
Aris Katsaris wrote:
--
James Maxon
(james...@usa.net)
Aris Katsaris
James Maxon <james...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:39126525...@usa.net...
> Well, here we go again. Perhaps the Balrogs had wings, but couldn't fly.
> Please consider it carefully before you say yea or nay. Anyway, that's my
> not-altogether-humble opinion.
Ofcourse we'll go again, and again and again... That's the point of
a not-settled dispute...
I don't buy the 'they had wings, but couldn't fly' hypothesis. That would be
just silly. They were Maiar, they wouldn't have created wings for decoration
purposes - if they had them they would have had some function...
Aris Katsaris
david campbell
James Maxon wrote:
>
> Well, here we go again. Perhaps the Balrogs had wings, but couldn't fly.
> Please consider it carefully before you say yea or nay. Anyway, that's my
> not-altogether-humble opinion.
> > James Maxon
> (james...@usa.net)
No wings. Just very long and elaborately plaited armpit hair. Hence
Gandalf "...fell into the pit."
It is an obscure reference and very easy to misunderstand so don't feel bad.
d. campbell
Durin VII
PaulB <pbac...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20000504180214...@nso-ce.aol.com...
<grim...@prodigy.net>
> writes:
> First off, I'm definitely a pro-wings person.
>
> It might be pointed out that in the case of the dream the "like"
seems to
> be used to show a non-committal forshadowing of an actual thing. "A
shadow
> like the shape of great wings" raises the tension cause by our not knowing
it
> is an eagle, but then we are told it is an eagle two sentences latter.
Tolkien
> seems to use this so that he can extend our not knowing for effect rather
than
> telling us off the bat that there is an eagle flying over head."
> The use of a technique once and then the finding of similar phasing
again
> with such a similar feel points to (but no, does not prove,) the second
> instance being a use of the same technique.
Still doesn't convine me (the falling thing has still got me), but I'll
always give credit to a good point :^)
grimgard
PaulB wrote:
> As an aside to this argument, I've never heard mention what physical thing
> is thought to have cast such a shadow if no wings were present. I imagine it
> had to come from the balrog in some way and I can't think of any other
> appendages that would do the same thing. My own interpretation is that
> "reached out" is a discription of the balrog expanding his wings at that moment
> but the first thing noticed in the gloom is the shadow they cast rather than
> the wings themselves. Small Light Source (Torches) + Largish Object (Wings of
> a larger than man creature) + Gloom of Darkness = impression of vast shadow
> which overwhelms impression of physical wings which are still hard make out in
> gloom.
>
> Breathe
> Peace
>
> PB
>
Well, the shadow is not merely dependant upon the physical form which blocks the
light source (thereby casting a shadow), but also by the nature and location of the
light source (or sources) itself. My cat could cast a shadow like two vast wings,
if the lighting was just right.
grimgard
grimgard
James Maxon wrote:
> Well, here we go again. Perhaps the Balrogs had wings, but couldn't fly.
> Please consider it carefully before you say yea or nay. Anyway, that's my
> not-altogether-humble opinion.
>
Personally, I'm an agnostic in the wings debate, but I tend to lean toward a
non-winged Balrog. I do, however, recognize the fallacy of the argument that a
winged creature can fly under any and all circumstances, and therefore could
never fall to its death. As I've said several times before, a critically injured
man may not be able to walk, even with two perfectly functional legs.
grimgard
grimgard
david campbell wrote:
> No wings. Just very long and elaborately plaited armpit hair. Hence
> Gandalf "...fell into the pit."
> It is an obscure reference and very easy to misunderstand so don't feel bad.
>
> d. campbell
Ah. Now I better understand Gandalf's reluctance to discuss the experience.
That certainly *would* be a very evil memory.
grimgard
kungm...@mindspring.com
wrote:
Good god man, Your cat is a Balrog!?!
""Go back, go back to the litter box that awaits you" He cried"
--
\/ \/ \/ \/
Sindamor Pandaturion
Patrick Moore
news:2kKQ4.50141$fV.31...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "grimgard" <grim...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:391336B4...@prodigy.net...
>
> > Personally, I'm an agnostic in the wings debate, but I tend to
> > lean toward a non-winged Balrog. I do, however, recognize the
> > fallacy of the argument that a winged creature can fly under any
> > and all circumstances, and therefore could never fall to its
> > death. As I've said several times before, a critically injured
> > man may not be able to walk, even with two perfectly functional
> > legs.
>
>
> If the Balrog could fly, why exactly did Gandalf break the bridge?
>
Anybody out there grow up on a farm? Know anything about chickens?
Being a city boy, I've always had the idea that chickens can fly, but only
clumsily and for very short distances. Perhaps Balrogs have chicken wings?
If you knocked a bridge out from under a chicken over a pit, I'd bet that
chicken would fall in, wings or not. And Gandalf knew the chicken-winged
Balrog couldn't fly well enough to escape the pit. (??)
(Don't make fun, now...)
Patrick, ducking a shower of eggs...
Patrick Moore
news:20000504180214...@nso-ce.aol.com...
> In article <3911D065...@prodigy.net>, grimgard
<grim...@prodigy.net>
> writes:
[snip]
>
> The use of a technique once and then the finding of similar phasing
again
> with such a similar feel points to (but no, does not prove,) the second
> instance being a use of the same technique. Has anyone else come across
any
> other similar occurences? If there were two more, especially if wings
weren't
> the shadows involved, I would then consider this proof of a writing
> technique/style and say that balrogs definitely have wings, no argument.
For
> now I will continue to say IMHO balrogs have wings.
I think this is interesting, and am going to try to look. I wish one of
these folks who has practically memorized the books would jump in and
provide a few references (if any exist).
Patrick
>
> As an aside to this argument, I've never heard mention what physical
thing
> is thought to have cast such a shadow if no wings were present. I imagine
it
> had to come from the balrog in some way and I can't think of any other
> appendages that would do the same thing. My own interpretation is that
> "reached out" is a discription of the balrog expanding his wings at that
moment
> but the first thing noticed in the gloom is the shadow they cast rather
than
> the wings themselves. Small Light Source (Torches) + Largish Object
(Wings of
> a larger than man creature) + Gloom of Darkness = impression of vast
shadow
> which overwhelms impression of physical wings which are still hard make
out in
> gloom.
>
>
>
> Breathe
> Peace
>
> PB
>
the softrat
wrote:
> I've always had the idea that chickens can fly, but only
>clumsily and for very short distances.
Chicken can fly, as I found out the hard way. (There's a long boring
story here.)
the softrat
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Smith & Wesson - The original point and click interface...
Conrad Dunkerson
PaulB
Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>The bit on that which always gets me is...
>
>If the Balrog could fly, why exactly did Gandalf break the bridge?
That's easy.
Regardless of whether the balrog could fly or not, there were orcs as
well, by breaking the bridge he prevented the orcs from using it to follow the
rest of the company. The orcs the had to take some other bridge (from the size
of Kazad-dūm, it would probably be a march measured in miles not yards) in
order to continue the pursuit. This would be a delay of at least an hour or two
if not more. (I'm trying to be conservative and give the orcs the benifit of
the doubt speedwise.) I would say that that time would be of critical
importance to a party as small as the Fellowship, as indeed it proved to be,
having given them a chance to look at Frodo's wounds and giving Gimli a chande
to look at Kheled-zāram.
grimgard
kungm...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> Good god man, Your cat is a Balrog!?!
>
> ""Go back, go back to the litter box that awaits you" He cried"
Hmmm....possible.
grimgard
PaulB
posited:
>It might be pointed out that in the case of the dream the "like" seems to
>be used to show a non-committal forshadowing of an actual thing.
<SNIP>
> The same could be said of the passage regarding the balrog. Not knowing
>what could cast a shadow like that makes causes a degree of dread in us that
is
>then resolved by the specific mention of wings a few lines latter. If
>Tolkien
>had mentioned the wings straight off we would have had a better picture of
>the
>balrog immediately but at the same time we would have lost that added tension
>cause by insinuating something and letting our minds work on it first.
<SNIP>
> The use of a technique once and then the finding of similar phasing again
>with such a similar feel points to (but no, does not prove,) the second
>instance being a use of the same technique. Has anyone else come across any
>other similar occurences? If there were two more, especially if wings weren't
>the shadows involved, I would then consider this proof of a writing
>technique/style and say that balrogs definitely have wings, no argument.
<SNIP>
Having said this I determined that I should make the effort if I wanted to
prove my own point. Here are a large number of examples which I believe help
to bolster the view that the "shadow" in the passage in contention -
"His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like
two vast wings. It raised the whip, and the thongs whined and cracked. ..... 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;" The Bridge of
Kazad-Dûm. -
is a literary device to increase the tension of the episode, and that the wings
mentioned later should be considered as real and physical. Most I have just
left as is. to a few I have added short commentary.
1. "Suddenly a shadow, like the shape of great wings, passed across the moon.
The figure lifted his arms and a light flashed from the staff that he wielded.
A mighty eagle swept down and bore him away." In the House of Tom Bombadil.
2. "Trembling he looked up, in time to see a tall dark figure like a shadow
against the stars. It leaned over him." Fog on the Barrow Downs.
3. "Over the lip of the little dell, on the side away from the hill, they
felt, rather than saw, a shadow rise, one shadow or more than one. They
strained their eyes, and the shadows seemed to grow. Soon there could be no
doubt: three or four tall black figures were standing there on the slope,
looking down on them." A Knife in the Dark.
4. " `Some said that it could be seen, like a great black horseman, a dark
shadow under the moon.' " The Council of Elrond.
5. "Suddenly he saw or felt a shadow pass over the high stars, as if for a
moment they faded and then flashed out again. He shivered.
`Did you see anything pass over?' he whispered to Gandalf, who was just ahead.
`No, but I felt it, whatever it was,' he answered. `It may be nothing, only a
wisp of thin cloud.'
`It was moving fast then,' muttered Aragorn, `and not with the wind.' " The
Ring Goes South.
6. "What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle
of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater; and a power and
terror seemed to be in it and to go before it.
It came to the edge of the fire and the light faded as if a cloud had bent over
it. Then with a rush it leaped across the fissure. The flames roared up to
greet it, and wreathed about it; and a black smoke swirled in the air. Its
streaming mane kindled, and blazed behind it. In its right hand was a blade
like a stabbing tongue of fire; in its left it held a whip of many thongs.
'Ai! ai! ' wailed Legolas. 'A Balrog! A Balrog is come! ' " The Bridge of
Kazad-dûm.
7. "Before them a wide grey shadow loomed, and they heard an endless rustle of
leaves like poplars in the breeze.
`Lothlórien! ' cried Legolas. 'Lothlórien! We have come to the eaves of the
Golden Wood. Alas that it is winter!' " Lothlórien.
8. " 'An evil of the Ancient World it seemed, such as I have never seen
before,' said Aragorn. `It was both a shadow and a flame, strong and terrible.'
'It was a Balrog of Morgoth,' " The Mirror of Galadriel
_In this instance, even the characters themselves seem to use the technique._
PaulB
9. "`Elbereth Gilthoniel!' sighed Legolas as he looked up. Even as he did so,
a dark shape, like a cloud and yet not a cloud, for it moved far more swiftly,
came out of the blackness in the South, and sped towards the Company, blotting
out all light as it approached. Soon it appeared as a great winged creature,
blacker than the pits in the night.
....
'Praised be the bow of Galadriel, and the hand and eye of Legolas! ' said
Gimli, as he munched a wafer of lembas. 'That was a mighty shot in the dark, my
friend!'
'But who can say what it hit?' said Legolas.
'I cannot,' said Gimli. `But I am glad that the shadow came no nearer. I liked
it not at all. Too much it reminded me of the shadow in Moria - the shadow of
the Balrog,' he ended in a whisper." The Great River.
_Two in one here. The first instance is not using "shadow"but "a dark shape,
like a cloud" to be a harbinger of "a great winged creature" PaulB_
10. "Aragorn saw a shadow on the distant green, a dark swift-moving blur. He
cast himself upon the ground and listened again intently. But Legolas stood
beside him, shading his bright elven-eyes with his long slender hand, and he
saw not a shadow, nor a blur, but the small figures of horsemen, many horsemen,
and the glint of morning on the tips of their spears was like the twinkle of
minute stars beyond the edge of mortal sight. " The Riders of Rohan.
11. "A shadow bent over Pippin. It was Uglúk." The Uruk-hai.
12. "At that moment a shadow fell over them. The bright moonlight seemed to be
suddenly cut off. .... A vast winged shape passed over the moon like a black
cloud. It wheeled and went north, flying at a speed greater than any wind of
Middle-earth. The stars fainted before it. It was gone.
They stood up, rigid as stones. Gandalf was gazing up, his arms out and
downwards, stiff, his hands clenched.
'Nazgûl!' he cried." The Palantîr.
13. "Then Frodo and Sam staring at the sky, breathing deeply of the fresher
air, saw it come: a small cloud flying from the accursed hills; a black shadow
loosed from Mordor; a vast shape winged and ominous. It scudded across the
moon, and with a deadly cry went away westward, outrunning the wind in its fell
speed.
They fell forward, grovelling heedlessly on the cold earth. But the shadow of
horror wheeled and returned, passing lower now, right above them, sweeping the
fen-reek with its ghastly wings. And then it was gone, flying back to Mordor
with the speed of the wrath of Sauron; and behind it the wind roared away,
leaving the Dead Marshes bare and bleak. The naked waste, as far as the eye
could pierce, even to the distant menace of the mountains, was dappled with the
fitful moonlight.
....
`Wraiths!' he wailed. `Wraiths on wings!...' The Passage of the Marshes.
14. "And hardly had they reached its shelter when the winged shadow had passed
over once again, and men wilted with fear."
15. "At ten paces the man stopped. He was tall, a dark standing shadow. Then
his clear voice rang out.
....
'Halbarad Dúnadan, Ranger of the North I am,' cried the man."
_Here is the only significant instance where the ominous nature of the shadow
helps to produce a cathartic effect when it is revealed to be a comrade not an
enemy. PaulB_
16. "But lo! suddenly in the midst of the glory of the king his golden shield
was dimmed. The new morning was blotted from the sky. Dark fell about him.
Horses reared and screamed. Men cast from the saddle lay grovelling on the
ground.
....
The great shadow descended like a falling cloud. And behold! it was a winged
creature: if bird, then greater than all other birds, and it was naked, and
neither quill nor feather did it bear, and its vast pinions were as webs of
hide between horned fingers; and it stank." The Battle of the Pelennor Fields.
17. "At that moment he caught a glimpse of a black form or shadow flitting
among the rocks away near Frodo's hiding-place. Biting back a cry, he leapt
down from the spring and ran, jumping from stone to stone. It was a wary
creature, difficult to see, but Sam had little doubt about it: he longed to get
his hands on its neck." The Land of Shadow.
18. "A crouching shape, scarcely more than the shadow of a living thing, a
creature now wholly ruined and defeated, yet filled with a hideous lust and
rage; and before it stood stern, untouchable now by pity, a figure robed in
white,..." Mount Doom.
The following are places where "shadow" is not used as a precurser to the
actual thing, but instead where "shadow" is used instead of the thing itself
after we know what it is. Not the same but still indicative of the technique
of using the word "shadow" instead of the actual object to heigthen tension.
1. "There, choosing a gap between the watchers, he [Grishnákh] passed like an
evil shadow out into the night, " The Uruk-hai.
2. "Even as they looked he [Gandalf] was gone: a flash of silver in the
sunset, a wind over the grass, a shadow that fled and passed from sight."
Helm's Deep.
3. "One by one they all went dark; they turned away, and a great bulk, beyond
the light's reach, heaved its huge shadow in between." Shelob's Lair.
4. "His master was gaining on him; already he was some twenty strides ahead,
flitting on like a shadow;..." Shelob's Lair.
5. "In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl. A great black shape against the fires
beyond he loomed up, grown to a vast menace of despair.
....
'You cannot enter here,' said Gandalf, and the huge shadow halted." The Siege
of Gondor.
6. "If he had looked back, he might have seen not far below Gollum turn again,
and then with a wild light of madness glaring in his eyes come, swiftly but
warily, creeping on behind, a slinking shadow among the stones."
Sharru-ken
<james...@usa.net> wrote:
>Well, here we go again. Perhaps the Balrogs had wings, but
couldn't fly.
>Please consider it carefully before you say yea or nay.
Anyway, that's my
>not-altogether-humble opinion.
Perhaps the Penguin has Balrog blood
>
>Aris Katsaris wrote:
>
>> PaulB <pbac...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>> news:20000504180214...@nso-ce.aol.com...
>> > As an aside to this argument, I've never heard mention
what physical
>> thing
>> > is thought to have cast such a shadow if no wings were
present.
>>
>> No physical thing. It's often been seen in Tolkien that the
Shadow that
>> some beings carry about them is a sort of mobile darkness,
which
>> almost has a material presence and isn't caused by the simple
absense
>> of light. For the most extreme example, check out the
Darkness of
>> Ungoliant...
>>
>> Thing is that the simile could be used both to describe
wings, and
>> to describe non-wings. Therefore it must be excluded from my
>> considerations, and everything else in all the rest of
Tolkien's
>> writings show that the Balrogs had no wings - firstmost that
he
>> doesn't mention wings when he describes them, second that
>> he has atleast two balrogs die through falling from high
places...
>>
>> Aris Katsaris
>
>--
>James Maxon
>(james...@usa.net)
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Patrick Moore
> In article <20000504180214...@nso-ce.aol.com>, PaulB had
previously
> posited:
>
> >It might be pointed out that in the case of the dream the "like" seems to
> >be used to show a non-committal forshadowing of an actual thing.
> <SNIP>
"A shadow seemed to pass by the window, and the hobbits glanced hastily
through the panes. When they turned again, Goldberry stood in the door
behind, framed in light." In the House of Tom Bombadil
Patrick Moore
the softrat <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:b797hs0j88d7rpepe...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 5 May 2000 23:01:52 -0500, "Patrick Moore" <mo...@odf.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I've always had the idea that chickens can fly, but only
> >clumsily and for very short distances.
>
> Chicken can fly, as I found out the hard way. (There's a long boring
> story here.)
>
Maybe someday I'll have a chance to buy you a beer and hear it... :-)
Patrick
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
>
>The bit on that which always gets me is...
>
>If the Balrog could fly, why exactly did Gandalf break the bridge?
Another thing: if the wings that "stretched from wall to wall" really were
material, how did the Balrog manage to advance through the hall between
those pillars?
Öjevind
Mike Kew
>Another thing: if the wings that "stretched from wall to wall" really were
>material, how did the Balrog manage to advance through the hall between
>those pillars?
They didn't stretch anywhere until the Balrog leapt onto the bridge.
Maybe it used them for balance.
--
Mike Kew
Patrick Moore
news:20000506113638...@nso-cn.aol.com...
[snip all]
I was thinking about "shadow" references, and my attention was caught by the
following:
"Praised be the bow of Galadriel, and the hand and eye of Legolas!" said
Gimli, as he munched a wafer of lembas. "That was a mighty shot in the dark,
my friend!"
"But who can say what it hit?" said Legolas.
"I cannot," said Gimli. "But I am glad that the shadow came no nearer. I
liked it not at all. Too much it reminded me of the shadow in Moria - the
shadow of the Balrog," he ended in a whisper.
"It was not a Balrog," said Frodo, still shivering with the chill that had
come upon him. "It was something colder. I think it was -" Then he paused
and fell silent." (FOTR, The Great River)
Note that Frodo doesn't say, "It was not a Balrog. Balrogs don't have
wings, so they can't fly." He says, "It was not a Balrog. It was something
colder." Almost as if, had it not been quite so "cold," he would not have
been surprised to have realized a Balrog was flying by overhead.
If you assume that since they left Moria Frodo has had enough conversations
with Elves and other loremasters that he understands the nature of Balrogs,
then this could be significant. Still not conclusive, but suggestive.
Again, if this is an old, well-beaten point, please pardon me. But in the
very limited Balrog exchanges I've followed, I've not seen this point
raised.
Patrick
elm
she is an angel with or without wings.
Forward with the creed of Goldberryism, the only true religion!
PaulB
<mo...@odf.org> writes:
>Note that Frodo doesn't say, "It was not a Balrog. Balrogs don't have
>wings, so they can't fly." He says, "It was not a Balrog. It was something
>colder." Almost as if, had it not been quite so "cold," he would not have
>been surprised to have realized a Balrog was flying by overhead.
>
>If you assume that since they left Moria Frodo has had enough conversations
>with Elves and other loremasters that he understands the nature of Balrogs,
>then this could be significant. Still not conclusive, but suggestive.
>
>Again, if this is an old, well-beaten point, please pardon me. But in the
>very limited Balrog exchanges I've followed, I've not seen this point
>raised.
>
>Patrick
Well, I haven't seen it before and while not conclusive in and of itself it
does lend weight to a growing list of pro-wing arguments that have been popping
up. It's also the first one I've seen where the reference is not directly to
an encounter with a balrog. By showing that the possibility of the airborne
threat could have been a balrog was considered and dismissed, rather than never
considered, it implies that there is an idea that the balrog could pursue by
air. Why consider it at all if balrogs can't fly because they don't have
wings.
Creole
> I've never heard mention what physical thing
> is thought to have cast such a shadow if no wings were present. I imagine it
> had to come from the balrog in some way and I can't think of any other
> appendages that would do the same thing. My own interpretation is that
> "reached out" is a discription of the balrog expanding his wings at that moment
> but the first thing noticed in the gloom is the shadow they cast rather than
> the wings themselves. Small Light Source (Torches) + Largish Object (Wings of
> a larger than man creature) + Gloom of Darkness = impression of vast shadow
> which overwhelms impression of physical wings which are still hard make out in
> gloom.
Yet the fire seems to die in the Balrog even as the shadow grows; if the shadow was
merely cast by its physical being and the light, that would seem rather
contradictory.
There's also the point that the shadow plunged down and vanished before the Balrog
actually fell. It's been suggested in a dfft thread that the two things happened
simultaneously, but since the Balrog managed to snag Gandalf before it fell, I
personally think the shadow fell first, so to speak.
Maybe the wings were attached to the shadow? :)
Creole
(change to 24 to reply)
grimgard
Patrick Moore wrote:
> If you assume that since they left Moria Frodo has had enough conversations
> with Elves and other loremasters that he understands the nature of Balrogs,
> then this could be significant. Still not conclusive, but suggestive.
>
> Again, if this is an old, well-beaten point, please pardon me. But in the
> very limited Balrog exchanges I've followed, I've not seen this point
> raised.
>
> Patrick
The point has been brought up before, but I wouldn't say it's been beaten to
death, although this debate in general probably has. But I see no reason to
assume that Frodo has had discussions with Elves or loremasters or anyone else
about Balrogs, nor do we know how much even a learned loremaster would know
about such a topic. Presumably Glorfindel would be a good source of
information, but is there anyone else around who's likely to have ever even seen
a Balrog? We take a great deal of knowledge for granted when reading The Lord
of the Rings, but much of the information that we receive comes from Gandalf and
is known only to very few and very select individuals.
grimgard
PaulB
writes:
>Yet the fire seems to die in the Balrog even as the shadow grows; if the
>shadow was
>merely cast by its physical being and the light, that would seem rather
>contradictory.
The shadow cast of the balrog was not caused by the fire of the balrog. That
is a physical impossibility. Try the following experiment:
1. (Really basic. Please don't be insulted, I just want to go through _all_
the steps.) Go into a very dark room and light a match. You will notice that
the only shadow cast is that of objects that get in the way of the light
hitting something else and now there is instead a shadow on the something else.
Notice that there is no shadow of the fire itself.
2. Light two matches at once. Now noice that because there is a separate
light source, there is a shadow cast by either light source on the opposite
wall from where the other match is.
The flame of the balrog did not cast the shadow of the balrog. Another light
source did, either from the light coming in from outside (I believe that there
was some by this point in the journey) or by torches carried by the fellowship.
I can't say about the light from out side because I don't know how wide spread
it was, but if the light was cast by a small flame from a torch, and struck a
large object, the Shadow of that object would be even larger, increasing as the
light source was moved closer to the object. The size would also increase as
the surface on which the shadow was cast was moved farther away from the object
casting it,
>There's also the point that the shadow plunged down and vanished before the
Balrog
>actually fell. It's been suggested in a dfft thread that the two things
happened
>simultaneously, but since the Balrog managed to snag Gandalf before it fell, I
>personally think the shadow fell first, so to speak.
>
I'll address this point although IMO believe that the problem is only in having
to describe the event in words piece by piece, the events, IMO, happened
simultaneously.
Because they were falling into a dark chasm the shadow would seemingly
disappear when it got subsumed into the general darkness if the light source
(again I assume torches) did not have enough power to cast it that far away.
Once again, try the experiment yourself:
1. Go to a well or other such chasm like simulation with a flashlight.
2. Put your hands at a full armspan apart, keeping the light holding hand
above the surface where you are standing and the other hand above the opening
of the well.
3. Shine the flashlight on your hand so that a shadow falls on the inside of
the well toward the top of the wall.
4. Without moving the hand holding the light or the direction in which the
light is pointed, move your other hand down.
You will notice two things: First no matter what speed your hand moves, the
shadow of it that falls on the wall of the well moves downward faster, and in
fact you should be able to notice that it "picks up speed" as the distance
between the shadow casting hand and the point on the wall directly opposite the
light source increases. Second there will come a point where the shadow seems
to disappear into the general darkness of the well even though your hand is
still illuminated to a degree.
Did I pass the Mr. Wizard audition?
PaulB
>There's also the point that the shadow plunged down and vanished before the
Balrog
>actually fell. It's been suggested in a dfft thread that the two things
happened
>simultaneously, but since the Balrog managed to snag Gandalf before it fell, I
>personally think the shadow fell first, so to speak.
From this statement it, you seem to imply that the shadow was something
different and not subject to the actions of the physical balrog which then
grabbed Gandalf. If this is true, and the shadow and the Balrog are two
separate entities, then the statement "the shadow about it reached out like to
vast wings" can be disregard entirely when considering whether baslrogs have
wings because it has nothing to do with the balrog.
This leaves us with the line, "It [the Balrog] stepped forward slowly on
to the bridge, and suddenly drew itself up to a great height, and its wings
were spread from wall to wall" as the _only_ statement regarding Balrogs and
their wings. It is a flat statement of fact that cannot be disputed within the
story, and seems only to be a problem to people who insist on applying their
own logic of motivation to a totally alien psychology and who wish to deny the
written words of the author about a actual object in his story when that logic
gets in the way of there imersion in the story _as the author wrote it._
The question of _why_ he didn't fly when the bridge broke must be answered
then, if what I think you imply _is_ what you imply, knowing that the balrog
has wings, because you have successfully eliminated as a factor the only line
that might make the existence of those wings less than certain. The pro-wing
party no longer has to show why he didn't fly to prove he has wings, they only
have to accept that he didn't fly. Now the burden of proof is on the anti-wing
party to show why not flying is in and of itself proof of the absence of wings.
Alan Graham
PaulB wrote in message <20000507115135...@nso-ci.aol.com>...
>In article <3915157E...@hotmail.com>, Creole <Creo...@hotmail.com>
>writes:
>
>>There's also the point that the shadow plunged down and vanished before
the
>Balrog
>>actually fell. It's been suggested in a dfft thread that the two things
>happened
>>simultaneously, but since the Balrog managed to snag Gandalf before it
fell, I
>>personally think the shadow fell first, so to speak.
>
> From this statement it, you seem to imply that the shadow was
something
>different and not subject to the actions of the physical balrog which then
>grabbed Gandalf. If this is true, and the shadow and the Balrog are two
>separate entities, then the statement "the shadow about it reached out
like to
>vast wings" can be disregard entirely when considering whether baslrogs
have
>wings because it has nothing to do with the balrog.
Tolkien repeatedly used "shadow" to describe something that was not exactly
the shadow created by blocking a light source.
To apply such logic here seems bizarre. The shadow CAN be part of the
Balrog, but not behave as we expect shadows to.
And so on, ad nauseum
While the application of logic and precepts such as Occams Razor would show
that Balrogs do have wings - the text can be interpreted either way, and
such interpretations backed by the text.
As long as someone's interpretation is okay by them, then there's no need
for any burden of proof to back it up. There is no need to have a
"definitive" answer to this.
That said, I think - applying the precepts of deduction and reasoning and
only if you really want to get a "right" answer - that Balrogs have wings. I
have seen no simpler explanation given for Balrogs to not have them.
Al
PaulB
<a...@kuhl-graham.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
>And so on, ad nauseum
>
>While the application of logic and precepts such as Occams Razor would show
>that Balrogs do have wings - the text can be interpreted either way, and
>such interpretations backed by the text.
>
>As long as someone's interpretation is okay by them, then there's no need
>for any burden of proof to back it up. There is no need to have a
>"definitive" answer to this.
I absolutely agree with this statement.
>That said, I think - applying the precepts of deduction and reasoning and
>only if you really want to get a "right" answer - that Balrogs have wings. I
>have seen no simpler explanation given for Balrogs to not have them.
>
>Al
>
I suppose one reason I am willing to give arguments for wings (and accept
that there are arguments against there existence, as much as I think they don't
support themselves,) is that it is a good subject with which to exercise my
critical and logical faculties. I enjoy the press of arguments against wings
and the challenge of rebutting them.
Using literary techniques such as finding comparative instances of
foreshadowing (no pun intended) of objects through the use of shadows, or using
logic to rebut arguments given such as the one I gave to which Alan gave the
above response is that it keeps me _thinking_, flexing that mental muscle, and
that flexing is only maximized when I allow my reasoning to undergo scrutiny by
others, whether through posting to newsgroups or otherwise, depending on the
topic. As Softrat has in his sig, "question my own authority." The best way
to do it is by opening up my thinking to critique by peers who I believe to
have the best opportunity to refute anything I may state.
And yes, when others show appreciation for my points, the positive
reinforcement is enjoyed even when the appreciation of the argument is not
followed by acceptence of it.
I suppose that's a long way to say I enjoy rational argument for its own
sake, but to say it so simply would make me seem to be a person who would
create discord to enjoy the ensuing arguments, and I hope to have shown above
this is not the case as far as I understand my own motivations. (Although I
could be wrong.)
Creole
> In article <3915157E...@hotmail.com>, Creole <Creo...@hotmail.com>
> writes:
>
> >Yet the fire seems to die in the Balrog even as the shadow grows; if the
> >shadow was
> >merely cast by its physical being and the light, that would seem rather
> >contradictory.
>
> The shadow cast of the balrog was not caused by the fire of the balrog. That
> is a physical impossibility.
<snip experiment>
>
> The flame of the balrog did not cast the shadow of the balrog.
No, I'm not insulted, you're generally too polite a guy for me to worry about it.
:) And you're right, of course, except that I still wonder: after all, Balrogs
surely don't obey *our* laws of physics when they don't want to.
<"Cap'n, I canna disobey the laws of physics!"
~shadowy creature looms over engine room of Enterprise~
"But *I* can.">
There's the Balrog's physical being (I forget the elves' word for it -- oa?),
there's the shadow, which was somehow *part* of his being, and there's the flame,
which was kindled when he leapt over the flames to confront the Fellowship. I have
no idea how they would interact together, but I'm not so sure we can assume that
they'd behave as regular, mundane items would.
I hope this doesn't sound like I'm simply retreating behind my theory; this is a
sincere question. :)
> Another light
> source did, either from the light coming in from outside (I believe that there
> was some by this point in the journey) or by torches carried by the fellowship.
The Fellowship didn't have torches; they'd been left behind when they scrambled for
the gates in their attempt to get away from the Watcher in the Water. Since they
were a room or so away from the outer gates, there prolly wasn't light from
outside. They didn't have Gandalf's staff to light the way, either, since he'd been
so shaken by the confrontation in the Chamber of Records (which most ppl feel was
with the Balrog) that he didn't have the energy to light the way for them. But
there was lots and lots of light from the fires coming from the pits in the floor.
Red light, true, but plenty of it. And if it *was* from the fires in the pits, then
wouldn't the Balrog be casting the shadow *over* the Fellowship, since the Balrog
stood between the fire pits and the bridge?
I'm not actually sure about this idea of the shadow being cast by outside sources,
really. It seemed much too Maia-ish for that. Is there a source anywhere to confirm
the shadow? We all know there's no source to confirm the wings... :)
Point taken on the shadow vanishing first, and I'll give you whatever Mr. Wizard
insignia you'd like. :) But again, I really would like to know if *this* shadow was
something other than just menace. Not the wings question per se, just whether the
shadow represented something other than an object blocking light.
You added the following reply in a separate post:
>From this statement it, you seem to imply that the shadow was something
>different and not subject to the actions of the physical balrog which then
>grabbed Gandalf. If this is true, and the shadow and the Balrog are two
>separate entities, then the statement "the shadow about it reached out like to
>vast wings" can be disregard entirely when considering whether baslrogs have
>wings because it has nothing to do with the balrog.
I do think I'm trying to imply that the shadow was something "other," but I don't
think I'm suggesting that it was a separate entity -- rather, that it represented
part of the Balrog's power. I am postulating that there was something about the
Balrog's manifestation on Middle Earth that looked like a shadow: perhaps that
which inspired fear, perhaps something else. Since it *was* part of it, it may or
may not have been a representation of the physical aspect -- that is, it may have
looked like wings because the Balrog had wings. Or not. Please, I am *not* trying
to join the wing debate. I'd need to lurk for at least two more years before I
could handle that one! :)
...But if you would like to take the implication and run with it, hey, be my guest.
Me, I'm quite happy sitting on the fence. I even brought along a cushion to make it
more comfortable.
Ahma
>Did I pass the Mr. Wizard audition?
<in-joke>
No. In order to pass the Mr. Wizard audition you must kill the perfect
predator (in the absense of one a Balrog would do) with...
...a steam pipe filled with bullets![insert dramatic music]
</in-joke>
--
Ahma
Raven
news:5hEDmOA+...@kew1.demon.co.uk...
> >Another thing: if the wings that "stretched from wall to wall" really
> >were material, how did the Balrog manage to advance through
> >the hall between those pillars?
> They didn't stretch anywhere until the Balrog leapt onto the bridge.
> Maybe it used them for balance.
Nonono. Balrogs are related to penguins, remember? They used their
wings like penguins do, for swimming. You should just see the Balrogs
shooting out of the water like penguins do onto the ice floes, then
drying themselves by their own inner fire while wearing their pink
fluffy bedroom slippers, combing their manes with the serrated back edge
of their flaming swords.
How do you think the Balrog of Moria interacted with the Watcher in
the water anyway?
Hrafn.
the softrat
>The shadow cast of the balrog was not caused by the fire of the balrog. That
>is a physical impossibility.
Balrogs are fantastic beings. Fantastic beings are not tied to our
mundane physics. Therefore ......
the softrat
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
A conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking.
(Arthur Bloch)
Sharru-ken
pbac...@aol.comnojunk (PaulB) wrote:
>In article <lR4R4.207993$AT6.2...@dfw-read.news.verio.net>,
"Patrick Moore"
><mo...@odf.org> writes:
>
>>Note that Frodo doesn't say, "It was not a Balrog. Balrogs
don't have
>>wings, so they can't fly." He says, "It was not a Balrog. It
was something
>>colder." Almost as if, had it not been quite so "cold," he
would not have
>>been surprised to have realized a Balrog was flying by
overhead.
>>
>>
< Slight trimming >
>>
>>Again, if this is an old, well-beaten point, please pardon
me. But in the
>>very limited Balrog exchanges I've followed, I've not seen
this point
>>raised.
>>
>>Patrick
>
>Well, I haven't seen it before and while not conclusive in and
of itself it
>does lend weight to a growing list of pro-wing arguments that
have been popping
>up. It's also the first one I've seen where the reference is
not directly to
>an encounter with a balrog. By showing that the possibility of
the airborne
>threat could have been a balrog was considered and dismissed,
rather than never
>considered, it implies that there is an idea that the balrog
could pursue by
>air. Why consider it at all if balrogs can't fly because they
don't have
>wings.
Might there be flying and earth-bound Valaraukar?
>
>Breathe
>Peace
>
>PB
>
>"... the essence of myth [is] that it have no taint of allegory
to the maker
>and yet should suggest incipient allegories to the reader..."
>C. S. Lewis, having read "The Lay of Leithian"
>
>
Sharru-ken
<jonlenn...@get2net.dk> wrote:
>Mike Kew <Brand...@kew1.demon.co.uk>
skrev i en
>news:5hEDmOA+...@kew1.demon.co.uk...
>
>> >Another thing: if the wings that "stretched from wall to
wall" really
>> >were material, how did the Balrog manage to advance through
>> >the hall between those pillars?
>
>> They didn't stretch anywhere until the Balrog leapt onto the
bridge.
>> Maybe it used them for balance.
> Nonono. Balrogs are related to penguins, remember?
To avoid - or correct - any confusion: this was my idea. I done
it.
They used their
>wings like penguins do, for swimming. You should just see the
Balrogs
>shooting out of the water like penguins do onto the ice floes,
Which their intense body-heat melts. That is why there are so
few of them.
then
>drying themselves by their own inner fire while wearing their
pink
>fluffy bedroom slippers, combing their manes with the serrated
back edge
>of their flaming swords.
> How do you think the Balrog of Moria interacted with the
Watcher in
>the water anyway?
>
>Hrafn.
>
>
>
Mark Kicksee
> Anybody out there grow up on a farm? Know anything about chickens?
>
> Being a city boy, I've always had the idea that chickens can fly, but only
> clumsily and for very short distances. Perhaps Balrogs have chicken wings?
> If you knocked a bridge out from under a chicken over a pit, I'd bet that
> chicken would fall in, wings or not. And Gandalf knew the chicken-winged
> Balrog couldn't fly well enough to escape the pit. (??)
>
> (Don't make fun, now...)
>
> Patrick, ducking a shower of eggs...
I didn't grow up on a farm, but on worked on some that had chickens... In
fact I was twice attacked by a rooster as I was feeding them, and had to fend it
off with my shoe.
Chicken can fly, but only for short distances. They usually use this ability
to fly up to a nice high spot (maybe twenty feet up) in their coop, so they can
roost off the ground and be safer from predators such as dogs and foxes. (You
have to design the coop so as to prevent this, unless you like to climb for
eggs.) It also allows them to land safely if they fall a short distance or jump
off a platform or fence. They don't seem smart enough to figure out they could
fly over a ten-foot fence, though... In fact they seem pretty dumb in general.
Turkeys, on the other hand, cannot fly at all. I remember an episode of WKRP
in which Herb arranges a Thanksgiving advertising stunt in which turkeys are
dropped from a helicopter to a store parking lot below. Les Nessman gives a
very dramatic description of the horror as they fall spattering on the ground.
Sharru-ken
the softrat <sof...@pobox.com> wrote:
>On 07 May 2000 15:09:39 GMT, pbac...@aol.comnojunk (PaulB)
wrote:
>
>>The shadow cast of the balrog was not caused by the fire of
the balrog. That
>>is a physical impossibility.
>
>Balrogs are fantastic beings. Fantastic beings are not tied to
our
>mundane physics. Therefore ......
If a story were *wholly* fantastic, it would be unintelligible.
Therefore, a fantasy must have some foundation in intelligible
reality if it is to work. So one would expect Balrogs to be as
observant of the laws of physics as the Numenoreans (who went
down, not up, when Numenor was destroyed.) The Balrog behaved
according to the terrestrial laws of gravity - perhaps its
existence and life would be conditioned by other such physical
laws too.
>
>the softrat
>mailto:sof...@pobox.com
>--
>A conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking.
>(Arthur Bloch)
>
>
Jonathan White
"Conrad Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:2kKQ4.50141$fV.31...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "grimgard" <grim...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:391336B4...@prodigy.net...
>
> > Personally, I'm an agnostic in the wings debate, but I tend to
> > lean toward a non-winged Balrog. I do, however, recognize the
> > fallacy of the argument that a winged creature can fly under any
> > and all circumstances, and therefore could never fall to its
> > death. As I've said several times before, a critically injured
> > man may not be able to walk, even with two perfectly functional
> > legs.
>
> The bit on that which always gets me is...
>
> If the Balrog could fly, why exactly did Gandalf break the bridge?
>
in the hall above, and that the falling Balrog therefore didn;t have enough
space to unfurl and flap his shadowy wings in the chasm. It sort of makes
sense to me ...
And, if anyone's interested, I reckon Tolkien deliberately left the wings
vague, because he wanted us all to engage our imaginations when reading the
books. *My Balrog* (as in the Balrog that I see in my mind when I read the
book) is winged, but you are entitled to have any form of Balrog you like -
wings, like fluffy pink slippers are optional extras :-)
Jon
Mark Kicksee
> >If the Balrog could fly, why exactly did Gandalf break the bridge?
>
> That's easy.
>
> Regardless of whether the balrog could fly or not, there were orcs as
> well, by breaking the bridge he prevented the orcs from using it to follow the
> rest of the company. The orcs the had to take some other bridge (from the size
> of Kazad-dūm, it would probably be a march measured in miles not yards) in
> order to continue the pursuit. This would be a delay of at least an hour or two
> if not more. (I'm trying to be conservative and give the orcs the benifit of
> the doubt speedwise.) I would say that that time would be of critical
> importance to a party as small as the Fellowship, as indeed it proved to be,
> having given them a chance to look at Frodo's wounds and giving Gimli a chande
> to look at Kheled-zāram.
>
My understanding was that the only entrances to Moria were the west gate
(blocked by the Watcher in the Water), the Endless Stair (long lost; it seems only
the balrog knew it) and the east gate (guarded by the bridge). Unless the orcs had
been doing some extensive tunnelling near the east gate, they would have to
construct a new bridge of some kind over the chasm to exit that way. A hasty
bridge would only allow a few across at a time, while a more solid bridge would
take a long time to make. The force that entered Lorien (a hundred or so) was
delayed by several hours, just long enough for it to be nice and dark outside.
It's surprising that Balin's people weren't able to defend the bridge in the
Second Hall from the orcs coming from "east up the Silverlode" (from Mordor or Dol
Guldur?). They either missed the chance to set up a strong defence, were vastly
outmatched, or were ready to defend the bridge in the wrong direction.
Conrad Dunkerson
> Regardless of whether the balrog could fly or not, there were
> orcs as well, by breaking the bridge he prevented the orcs from
> using it to follow the rest of the company.
Reasonable. However, the Orcs did follow the rest of the company
anyway. Not immediately no, but then... it was daylight. They
would not have willing gone about by day. I've generally suspected
that they just took the same slabs they crossed the fire with and
used them to cover the gap in the bridge. Meaning that they COULD
have followed immediately, but didn't.
But think... if the Balrog COULD fly then breaking the bridge seems
counter-productive in the immediate confrontation. The whole thing
might collapse, taking Gandalf with it, and leave the remainder of
the fellowship to face the Balrog without him.
Conrad Dunkerson
> Why consider it at all if balrogs can't fly because they don't
> have wings.
Ringwraiths can't fly and don't have wings... yet Frodo thought it
was a Ringwraith.
Conrad Dunkerson
news:lR4R4.207993$AT6.2...@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
> "I cannot," said Gimli. "But I am glad that the shadow came no
> nearer. I liked it not at all. Too much it reminded me of the
> shadow in Moria - the shadow of the Balrog," he ended in a
> whisper.
We've discussed this point before. It is generally considered
inconclusive as Gimli did not say that he thought the thing WAS a
Balrog - only that the shadow of it reminded him of the shadow of
the Balrog.
> Note that Frodo doesn't say, "It was not a Balrog. Balrogs don't
> have wings, so they can't fly." He says, "It was not a Balrog.
> It was something colder." Almost as if, had it not been quite so
> "cold," he would not have been surprised to have realized a
> Balrog was flying by overhead.
As I noted elsewhere the 'Black Riders' did not have wings and yet
Frodo seemed to think that the shadow overhead was one.
sam th
It should, however, be noted that Frodo was right about this. It was
in fact a 'Black Rider,' but with a different mount. Frodo had a
unique perspective on the Black Riders (having been stabbed) and would
therefore know one when he saw one (probably). I am not sure if this
means that Frodo considered it as potentially a Balrog.
--
sam th
s...@uchicago.edu
http://sam.rh.uchicago.edu
PaulB
writes:
>No. In order to pass the Mr. Wizard audition you must kill the perfect
>predator (in the absense of one a Balrog would do) with...
>...a steam pipe filled with bullets![insert dramatic music]
>
></in-joke>
>
>--
>Ahma
>
I wanna be Mr. Wizard, not McGyver!!! McGyver's job just has to much risk
involved for me.
PaulB
<m-ki...@vegacom.on.ca> writes:
> My understanding was that the only entrances to Moria were the west gate
>(blocked by the Watcher in the Water), the Endless Stair (long lost; it seems
>only
>the balrog knew it) and the east gate (guarded by the bridge).
Well, you seem to be taking to my general point here, but I would like to say
that while these are the only entrances and exits from Kazad-dūm, there seem to
have been a multiplicity of routes to get to any one of them. There are a
couple of references to the efficacy of alternate routes or why it was a good
thing they didn't take a route other than they did. I don't think think there
was a _great_ number of routes, I do think there were probably at least two
ways to get anywhere.
PaulB
Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>I've generally suspected
>that they just took the same slabs they crossed the fire with and
>used them to cover the gap in the bridge. Meaning that they COULD
>have followed immediately, but didn't.
I've always imagined the gap a lot larger than this, not that I can find
any indication of it's approximate width, but I always figure something around
twenty to thirty feet, something that would require and arched bridge to span,
rather than something that could be handled by a single slab of stone. I don't
know how the drarves managed it, but I trust them as engineers to have been
able to do it.
>
>But think... if the Balrog COULD fly then breaking the bridge seems
>counter-productive in the immediate confrontation.
The point under consideration is not whether the Balrog could fly but whether
the Balrog had wings. I know some people insist that if he could have he would
have and join this thought to the idea equating of existence of wings with
ability to use said wings for flight in order to disprove the existence of the
wings but that simply is not the issue.
>The whole thing
>might collapse, taking Gandalf with it, and leave the remainder of
>the fellowship to face the Balrog without him.
>
I think that Gandalf's idea was to sacrifice himself by keeping the balrog's
focus on the maia that had invaded his domain rather than on the fellowship,
who had a goal greater than the balrogs narrowly defined concept of "get the
guy that was part of the winning side so many years ago". (If indeed anyone
had bathered to tell this particular balrog that the war was over and his guy
lost.) I think that both Gandalf and the balrog each thought that they could
survive the fall itself, it was the battle between the two of them that each,
or at least Gandalf, was unsure of surviving. This makes breaking of the
bridge a good tactical more on Gandalf's part. I don't think the balrog knew
or cared about the ring, he and his minions were just ornery people by nature,
but once the balrog identified a sworn enemy from ages past, he focused on that
one being and left the lesser beings to his cohort to handle. Gandalf would
probably realize that this grudge would consume the balrog's thoughts, and
played a card which took advantage of it, to the benefit of the _mission_ even
if not necessarily to his own personal benefit.
PaulB
Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>> Why consider it at all if balrogs can't fly because they don't
>> have wings.
>
>Ringwraiths can't fly and don't have wings... yet Frodo thought it
>was a Ringwraith.
>
>
Because Frodo has a greater ability to sense the ringwraiths due to the ring,
(and maybe also due to the wound from the Morgul blade, but that is not
necessary givin the ring. If it had been someone besides Frodo to make that
statement I would give that argument some validity, but not Frodo.
PaulB
White" <whi...@rebeccaj.demon.co.uk> writes:
>And, if anyone's interested, I reckon Tolkien deliberately left the wings
>vague, because he wanted us all to engage our imaginations when reading the
>books. *My Balrog* (as in the Balrog that I see in my mind when I read the
>book) is winged, but you are entitled to have any form of Balrog you like -
>wings, like fluffy pink slippers are optional extras :-)
>
>Jon
>
In the end it is probably better to consign the wings to a schroėdingers box of
the mind, only to be opened at each reading of the appropriate passages and
discovered anew each time thereby.
PaulB
<oxy104N...@aol.com.invalid> writes:
>Might there be flying and earth-bound Valaraukar?
>
>
Yes. Or they might develop slowly and the wings only grow after a few ages.
This would explain why there is no mention, ambiguous or otherwise, of wings
when balrogs are mentioned in stories of the First Age.
PaulB
writes:
> I have no idea how they would interact together, but I'm not so sure we can
>assume that they'd behave as regular, mundane items would.
>
My personal rule for reading fantastic fiction is that real world laws of
nature apply except where stated in a specific or general manner that they
differ. In other words, I accept that magic works because the author tells me
so, but I do not believe that things work differently unless the author tells
me so. For example fire (light) will produce or not produce shadows in the
same way in an imagined world as in the real world unless the author states
that the light is of a type that produces illumination without shadow. To make
assumptions otherwise is to make every unaddressed aspect of the fantistical
creation open to speculation which allows for a myriad possibilities, thereby
rendering a story incomprehensible and distracting the reader because of loose
ends that are not necessarily integral to the plot.
This personal rule does not apply to other unaddressed loose ends like
motive. This is something not subject to the general rules and can only be
worked out through the speculation of the individual reader.
Ahma
>In article <8F2DC1FCB...@195.197.108.82>,
>ekro...@fastermail.com (Ahma) writes:
>
>>No. In order to pass the Mr. Wizard audition you must kill the
>>perfect predator (in the absense of one a Balrog would do)
>>with... ...a steam pipe filled with bullets![insert dramatic
>>music]
>>
>></in-joke>
>>
>I wanna be Mr. Wizard, not McGyver!!! McGyver's job just has to
>much risk involved for me.
Does the name Michael Garibaldi ring a bell? No?
--
Ahma
PaulB
writes:
>>I wanna be Mr. Wizard, not McGyver!!! McGyver's job just has to
>>much risk involved for me.
>
>Does the name Michael Garibaldi ring a bell? No?
>
>
>--
>Ahma
Only if he's the guy from Babylon 5. (I know the guy's name is Garibaldi, I
don't know his first name.) Anyhow, although I liked Babylon 5 when I saw it,
I never watched it consistantly and so don't know the reference. Sorry.
EnDoRpHiNe5
Beastiary" it is a bible to me. It is an a- z of every creature
and race in middle earth and may help solve this arguement once
and for all. Im at work now but 2nite if i remember and have time
i will check it out for u all.
Peace :-)
Ahma
>
>Garibaldi, I don't know his first name.) Anyhow, although I
>liked Babylon 5 when I saw it, I never watched it consistantly and
>so don't know the reference. Sorry.
Well, then let me to explain. He called himself Mr. Wizard in the
episode he tried to hack into the main computer do something (I've
forgotten what, maybe he tried to disable some security systems for
Sheridan or something) but only managed to get the cabin door to open
and close repeatedly. This is where he got his nickname Mr. Wizard.
The episode I was referring to is "Grey 17 is missing" which includes
one of the worst sub-plots in a Babylon 5 episode ever. In this said
plot Garibaldi looks for a level (17) that seems to be missing from
the Grey sector and gets kidnapped by a group of cultists who have
taken over the whole level. They have with them a zarg, a creature
they call the perfect predator/hunter/whatever, which Garibaldi has
to face in order to escape.
Well, so far so good, but the zarg is revealed to be an drunken man
in a rubber suit with the longest fingernails since Freddy Krueger.
As the "horrid" beast slowly staggers towards Garibaldi, he pulls out
a piece of pipe off the wall, inserts some bullets in it, and shoots
them out using the pressure of the gas flowing out of the broken
pipe. The funniest thing is that the bullets were all put in the pipe
at the same time, but they shoot out of it one by one... It has to be
magic, but then it *was* done by Mr. Wizard.
--
Ahma the Babylonian
Ahma
>If u want to find out about Balrog's u should read "A Tolkien
>Beastiary" it is a bible to me. It is an a- z of every creature
>and race in middle earth and may help solve this arguement once
>and for all. Im at work now but 2nite if i remember and have time
>i will check it out for u all.
ROTFL!! :D :D
...This was a joke, right?
--
Ahma
Alatar
Mark Kicksee wrote:
<snip snip>
> Chicken can fly, but only for short distances.
IIRC the longest recorded chicken flight was 13 seconds.
--
Alatar
PaulB
<oasis_en...@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>If u want to find out about Balrog's u should read "A Tolkien
>Beastiary" it is a bible to me. It is an a- z of every creature
>and race in middle earth and may help solve this arguement once
>and for all. Im at work now but 2nite if i remember and have time
>i will check it out for u all.
>Peace :-)
See my response to your post in "Re: Coming Attractions."
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
> How do you think the Balrog of Moria interacted with the Watcher in
>the water anyway?
Please... I don't want to know.
Öjevind
"Jabba the Hutt has moved into the trailer next to mine. I get pissed off by
his noisy parties. He never invites me."
(From "The Diary of a Redneck Jedi")
Steuard Jensen
> I think this is interesting, and am going to try to look. I wish
> one of these folks who has practically memorized the books would
> jump in and provide a few references (if any exist).
This is a dare, but one that I at least am not going to pursue just
now. :) I do seem to recall that there's a place in the Akalabeth
where Tolkien describes clouds like Eagles or something of the sort:
it was brought up in a Balrog-wing-inspired debate some time ago.
Have fun searching. :)
Steuard Jensen
the softrat
wrote:
Geez, it seemed like forever! Nothin' like Chicken-in-your-Face.
the softrat
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Smith & Wesson - The original point and click interface...
Steuard Jensen
> >ekro...@fastermail.com (Ahma) writes:
> >>No. In order to pass the Mr. Wizard audition you must kill the
> >>perfect predator (in the absense of one a Balrog would do)
> >>with... ...a steam pipe filled with bullets![insert dramatic
> >>music]
> Does the name Michael Garibaldi ring a bell? No?
Oh, gaw. That was one of the single lamest episodes in the entire
Babylon 5 series. (It even rivaled "Infection", which is saying
something.) Watch it and "Severed Dreams" in quick succession and
you'll think they're different series. (The latter being one of the
absolute _best_ episodes, of course, and the reason that I fell in
love with the series.)
Steuard Jensen
Steuard Jensen
> Creole <Creo...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > I have no idea how they would interact together, but I'm not so sure we can
> >assume that they'd behave as regular, mundane items would.
> For example fire (light) will produce or not produce shadows in the
> same way in an imagined world as in the real world unless the author
> states that the light is of a type that produces illumination
> without shadow.
The snippet from Creole above isn't the specific one that I would have
chosen to make this comment, but some of the other ideas in his (her?)
post were quite close to the "rough consensus" that I've included in
the Tolkien Newsgroups FAQ. Specifically, I (and a fair number of
others) believe that the Balrog was surrounded by some sort of
"palpable darkness", "dark emanation", or "cloudlike appendage". We
consider the cloud to be in some sense or other a _part_ of the Balrog
itself, whatever its nature might be. Some folks like to call this
darkness "wings", as the only shape that we ever see it take is the
shape of wings. (We don't know whether or not the Balrog could have
made it look like a big pair of Mickey Mouse ears or a dark halo, for
example; there's no evidence that it could, but there isn't any
specific evidence that it couldn't.)
This notion of a "palpable darkness" gets some reasonable amount of
support from the fact that when the Balrog stands between the
Fellowship and the fire, the light of the fire is _dimmed_ rather than
just plain blocked (as I would expect from flesh-and-blood or
bone-and-hide wings). It's also, incidentally, a position that most
(but not all) of the most eager Warriors of the Wing (including me
_and_ Michael) of battles past seem to have supported. Make of that
what you will.
Steuard Jensen
Steuard Jensen
> This leaves us with the line, "It [the Balrog] stepped forward
> slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly drew itself up to a great
> height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall" as the _only_
> statement regarding Balrogs and their wings. It is a flat statement
> of fact that cannot be disputed within the story, and seems only to
> be a problem to people who insist on applying their own logic of
> motivation to a totally alien psychology and who wish to deny the
> written words of the author about a actual object in his story when
> that logic gets in the way of there imersion in the story _as the
> author wrote it._
You know, I didn't really expect to see any comments with quite this
tone in this incarnation of the Balrog Wings debate.
I like to think that I'm applying fairly careful logic to this
question. I also like to think that my reading of the text at least
_could_ be the author's intent. I believe that the Balrog scene in
Moria can be very naturally read as _not_ describing "bone and hide"
or "flesh and blood" wings on the Balrog, the direct statement that
you've quoted above notwithstanding. I will admit from the start that
the argument is inspired by the mental image I have while reading the
passage, but the very fact that a non-solid-winged Balrog is the
picture in my head suggests that it's _a_ possible way to read the
text.
At any rate, there are several contributing factors to the argument.
First of all, as I've mentioned in another post, when the Balrog
stands between the Fellowship and the chasm of fire, the fire seems
_dimmed_ rather than blocked. I can't give a mathematical proof, but
the image in my mind is very much what I would expect if a cloud
settled between me and a light source. I would expect wings like
those of a bird or bat to block the light completely (or, at the
most, to provide only a spooky sort of "X-ray" effect).
Second, while I'll admit that the use of "like" followed by a more
direct statement to indicate a transition from vagueness to clarity is
quite possible, I don't think it's the only reasonable interpretation
of the construction. The first mention of "wings" is when "the shadow
about it reached out like two vast wings", which can easily be read in
exactly the same way one would read "Her hair fell onto her shoulders
like a waterfall of gold". In this phrase, there is clearly no actual
gold on "her" shoulders, nor an actual waterfall. If I go on to say,
"The gold splashed around her neck as she turned to leave," I'm
_still_ talking about the hair, despite the fact that a literal
reading of my words would indicate that there was. I (and others)
believe that a very similar thing is going on in the Balrog passage:
there is _something_ there, but it's not a "flesh and blood" or "bone
and leather" wing.
Finally, note that Aragorn and Gimli both refer explicitly to the
connection between the Balrog and "shadow": Aragorn speaks of it in
Lorien with the words "It was both a shadow and a flame", and Gimli
says on the Anduin "...it reminded me of the shadow in Moria...". If
the only shadow in question was an ordinary shadow cast on the walls,
why do they speak of the Balrog itself as a shadow? I would argue
that this in and of itself indicates that the Balrog had some sort of
"shadowy emanation" associated with it. If you grant me that, then
Tolkien's statement "the shadow about it reached out like two vast
wings" seems to pretty clearly identify the "shadow", whatever it was,
with the "wings" that he is talking about in the passage. (Unless, of
course, you want to suggest that _first_ the "shadowy emanation"
reached out like two vast wings, and _then_, independently, some
different wings popped out and spread from wall to wall. I don't buy
it.)
At any rate, I may have misunderstood your argument, but I thought
that I would post one contribution to this thread, anyway. :)
Steuard Jensen
sam th
>
> "PaulB" <pbac...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>
> > Because Frodo has a greater ability to sense the ringwraiths due
> > to the ring, (and maybe also due to the wound from the Morgul
> > blade, but that is not necessary givin the ring.
>
>
> Gimli saw something and it reminded him of the shadow of the
> Balrog. He said so and this is taken to possibly imply that the
> Balrog had wings.
>
> Frodo saw something and it reminded him of the Ringwraiths. His
> heightened sensitivity (from whatever source) contributed to this
> belief. Yet we know that Ringwraiths did not have wings.
>
> If Frodo can think it reminds him of a Ringwraith, despite knowing
> that they don't have wings, why couldn't Gimli think it reminded
> him of the Balrog, despite knowing (hypothetically) that it did not
> have wings?
Well, apparently he knew that Ringwraiths could fly on various foul
beasts, or he guessed that after he saw a Ringwraith flying above
him. But Gimli, who didn't have access to the knowledge Frodo did,
assumed it was a Balrog, which he had seen to have wings.
grimgard
Mark Kicksee wrote:
> Turkeys, on the other hand, cannot fly at all. I remember an episode of WKRP
> in which Herb arranges a Thanksgiving advertising stunt in which turkeys are
> dropped from a helicopter to a store parking lot below. Les Nessman gives a
> very dramatic description of the horror as they fall spattering on the ground.
Yes, I remember the episode very well, along with Les' incomparable description:
"They're hitting the ground like sacks of wet cement!"
grimgard
grimgard
Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
> "PaulB" <pbac...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> news:20000507014442...@nso-ca.aol.com...
>
> > Why consider it at all if balrogs can't fly because they don't
> > have wings.
>
> Ringwraiths can't fly and don't have wings... yet Frodo thought it
> was a Ringwraith.
Well, it was certainly always my belief that Frodo recognized the
creature as a Ringwraith, but does he actually say that anywhere? As I
recall, he started to say what he thought it was, then he hesitated.
When Boromir pressed him about it, he clammed up.
grimgard
grimgard
Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
> "Patrick Moore" <mo...@odf.org> wrote in message
> news:lR4R4.207993$AT6.2...@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
>
> > "I cannot," said Gimli. "But I am glad that the shadow came no
> > nearer. I liked it not at all. Too much it reminded me of the
> > shadow in Moria - the shadow of the Balrog," he ended in a
> > whisper.
>
> We've discussed this point before. It is generally considered
> inconclusive as Gimli did not say that he thought the thing WAS a
> Balrog - only that the shadow of it reminded him of the shadow of
> the Balrog.
>
Yes, BUT, did the Balrog really cast a shadow or were they just wings
that *looked* like a shadow?
grimgard (anybody wanna look up 'shadow' on dictionary.com?)
grimgard
EnDoRpHiNe5 wrote:
> If u want to find out about Balrog's u should read "A Tolkien
> Beastiary" it is a bible to me. It is an a- z of every creature
> and race in middle earth and may help solve this arguement once
> and for all. Im at work now but 2nite if i remember and have time
> i will check it out for u all.
> Peace :-)
I hate to burst your bubble, but it's considered more of a Satanic bible on this
newsgroup. :)
grimgard
grimgard
Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
> "PaulB" <pbac...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> news:20000507110939...@nso-fv.aol.com...
>
> > The shadow cast of the balrog was not caused by the fire of the
> > balrog. That is a physical impossibility.
>
> As the shadow does several other 'physically impossible' things in
> that scene I don't think we can really consider it a 'shadow' in
> the sense of an area of lessened light caused by an obstruction
> between a light source and a solid surface.
>
> I consider it more in keeping with the 'shadows' which surrounded
> Ungoliant, Shelob and even Sauron... a region of palpable darkness
> put out by the creature itself.
Ooooohhh, I like that phrase: 'palpable darkness'! But it deserves a
better verb than 'put out.' 'Exuded' maybe?
grimgard
grimgard
Alan Graham wrote:
> While the application of logic and precepts such as Occams Razor would show
> that Balrogs do have wings - the text can be interpreted either way, and
> such interpretations backed by the text.
>
Oh geeze! Are we going to try applying scientific principles to man-made
creations again? Nature takes the path of least resistance, man does not.
grimgard
grimgard
Steuard Jensen wrote:
> Quoth pbac...@aol.comnojunk (PaulB):
> > This leaves us with the line, "It [the Balrog] stepped forward
> > slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly drew itself up to a great
> > height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall" as the _only_
> > statement regarding Balrogs and their wings. It is a flat statement
> > of fact that cannot be disputed within the story, and seems only to
> > be a problem to people who insist on applying their own logic of
> > motivation to a totally alien psychology and who wish to deny the
> > written words of the author about a actual object in his story when
> > that logic gets in the way of there imersion in the story _as the
> > author wrote it._
>
> You know, I didn't really expect to see any comments with quite this
> tone in this incarnation of the Balrog Wings debate.
>
I know what you meant by that, even if you didn't. But don't worry, my
lips are seals.
grimgard
the softrat
wrote:
In my opinion, we should seek the opinion of Elrond Hubbard and other
gupus.
the softrat
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
It may appear that I'm against culture, but the first two indoor
hockey rinks were built in my time as a mayor.
Patrick Moore
news:F3HR4.104$v3.2083@uchinews...
I know it's pure laziness, but just after I posted this, Paul did a fairly
detailed search of his own, and came up with about 20 references to this
point, so I decided not to reproduce what he'd done. I know if I'm going
to get up to speed with you guys, I'll need to do a lot of those searches on
my own. For about 10 years...
Patrick
> Steuard Jensen
Patrick Moore
Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:atJR4.44746$PV.30...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "PaulB" <pbac...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> news:20000507110939...@nso-fv.aol.com...
>
> > The shadow cast of the balrog was not caused by the fire of the
> > balrog. That is a physical impossibility.
>
> As the shadow does several other 'physically impossible' things in
> that scene I don't think we can really consider it a 'shadow' in
> the sense of an area of lessened light caused by an obstruction
> between a light source and a solid surface.
>
> I consider it more in keeping with the 'shadows' which surrounded
> Ungoliant, Shelob and even Sauron...
... and Gandalf (when he's pissed off)...
Patrick
Conrad Dunkerson
> The point under consideration is not whether the Balrog could fly
> but whether the Balrog had wings.
Actually, if you'll go back I think you'll see that this particular
line of discussion was specifically focusing on whether it could
fly.
> I think that Gandalf's idea was to sacrifice himself by keeping
> the balrog's focus on the maia that had invaded his domain rather
> than on the fellowship,
Makes sense... but seems a terrible gamble to hope that a flying
Balrog would choose to follow him down into the depths rather than
killing all his friends first and THEN following him. Now, if the
Balrog COULDN'T fly all you say about self-sacrifice is equally
true and the major potential risk is gone.
Conrad Dunkerson
Conrad Dunkerson
> Yes. Or they might develop slowly and the wings only grow after
> a few ages. This would explain why there is no mention, ambiguous
> or otherwise, of wings when balrogs are mentioned in stories of
> the First Age.
Actually, an interesting side note is that there was no mention of
wings in the original drafts of this passage. When the term first
appears it seems to be describing the parting of the shadow
reaching out around GANDALF;
"...the Balrog halted facing him, and the shadow about him reached
out like great wings."
ToI, The Bridge
I've speculated in the past that this might have marked a turning
point where JRRT considered or decided to put wings on the Balrogs.
The 'wings were spread from wall to wall' bit has no parallels in
any of the published drafts and may have appeared only in the final
version. I think that Tolkien may have liked the imagery, but left
it vague as to whether they were REALLY wings or not because he had
not been able to review the idea against the existing materials on
Balrogs and decide whether to work it in or not. It is interesting
that the most 'pro-wings' variant of the 'Hithlum passage' also
post dates this sudden appearance of 'wings' at the bridge.
Conrad Dunkerson
> The shadow cast of the balrog was not caused by the fire of the
> balrog. That is a physical impossibility.
As the shadow does several other 'physically impossible' things in
that scene I don't think we can really consider it a 'shadow' in
the sense of an area of lessened light caused by an obstruction
between a light source and a solid surface.
I consider it more in keeping with the 'shadows' which surrounded
Ungoliant, Shelob and even Sauron... a region of palpable darkness
Conrad Dunkerson
news:3917694F...@prodigy.net...
> Well, it was certainly always my belief that Frodo recognized the
> creature as a Ringwraith, but does he actually say that
> anywhere?
No, as you point out it isn't explicitly stated. However, the
reference to the old wound in his shoulder acting up coupled with
what he >does< say makes that answer seem very likely. In any
case, we do know that it WAS a Ringwraith and there don't seem to
be many other options for Frodo's supposition... unless he thought
that it was Old Man Willow up there. :)
Ahma
>Quoth ekro...@fastermail.com (Ahma):
>> Does the name Michael Garibaldi ring a bell? No?
>
>Oh, gaw. That was one of the single lamest episodes in the entire
>Babylon 5 series. (It even rivaled "Infection", which is saying
>something.) Watch it and "Severed Dreams" in quick succession and
>you'll think they're different series. (The latter being one of the
>absolute _best_ episodes, of course, and the reason that I fell in
>love with the series.)
I wouldn't say the whole episode was lame, if they had just edited
the whole Braindead Zarg -plot out of it, it would have been just
fine (athough a bit short). I guess the plot looked a lot better
written on a page...
--
Ahma
Jon
grimgard <grim...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> But don't worry, my
> lips are seals.
Sounds nasty...
Jon.
--
_ _ _
/ \ / \ / \ jgh...@argonet.co.uk * j...@acornarcade.com
( J | o | n )http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/jghall/
\_/ \_/ \_/ 7, High Street, Balrog Cuttings, TEUNC.
PaulB
Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>"PaulB" <pbac...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>news:20000507110939...@nso-fv.aol.com...
>
>> The shadow cast of the balrog was not caused by the fire of the
>> balrog. That is a physical impossibility.
>
>As the shadow does several other 'physically impossible' things in
>that scene I don't think we can really consider it a 'shadow' in
>the sense of an area of lessened light caused by an obstruction
>between a light source and a solid surface.
The shadow only does impossible things _if_ it is thought of a something
different than a normal shadow. If it is considered a normal shadow, then any
action it takes can be understood as a literary device that Tolkien uses to
descibe the action of the balrog itself as well, but by using the shadow as the
subject of the clause he makes the actions more ominous. For me the two are
one, and actions of the shadow are only a second had viewing of actions of the
alrog itself. There might even be a cheap point for the pro-wing side which
says: why bring up extra problems the extra problems of have to deal with
impossibilities by claiming the shadow is _not_ a normal shadow?
PaulB
Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>"PaulB" <pbac...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
It makes a big difference. Gimli sees a something winged in the air and
relates it to the last thing he saw that was that size and has wings. Frodo,
even though it is more reasonable for him to assume the same, _knows_
differently, because of his connection to the ringwraiths through the ring.
Storywise I think this passage is there primarily to help illustrate the
growing influence of the ring on Frodo, by giving us a bench mark. The passage
was not written to prove that balrogs have wings but as an aside, IMVHO, does
add another piece to the circumstantial evidence that they do.
PaulB
>Steuard Jensen wrote:
>
>> Quoth pbac...@aol.comnojunk (PaulB):
>> > This leaves us with the line, "It [the Balrog] stepped forward
>> > slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly drew itself up to a great
>> > height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall" as the _only_
>> > statement regarding Balrogs and their wings. It is a flat statement
>> > of fact that cannot be disputed within the story, and seems only to
>> > be a problem to people who insist on applying their own logic of
>> > motivation to a totally alien psychology and who wish to deny the
>> > written words of the author about a actual object in his story when
>> > that logic gets in the way of there imersion in the story _as the
>> > author wrote it._
>>
>> You know, I didn't really expect to see any comments with quite this
>> tone in this incarnation of the Balrog Wings debate.
>>
I had no intention in putting forth my reasoning to have it be read with any
idea that I was forcing a definitive answer. The point quoted above is just
the second half of an if/then statement that was in the original post. Yes, I
feel that _if_ the first premis stated was true (a statement concerning my
interpretation of another persons post) then the above paragraph, which
reflects the fact that it was written with the belief that the logic was sound
and hard to refute, is true as well. No pronouncement "from on high" was
intended. The statement _should_ be accepted if the premis is accepted and the
logic is sound, but I do not assume that the premis is one that all or any will
accept, and therefore do not assume that the logical argumentation will be
accepted and neither do I insist it must be.
>I know what you meant by that, even if you didn't. But don't worry, my
>lips are seals.
>
>grimgard
>
It's not easy writting a defense of the tone of a logical argument without
coming across as a domineering and arogant individual. The cold tone of logic
is not the most appealing thing rhetorically speaking. I hope I succeeded.
Keeping my lips sealed as well ;-)
Juho P. Pahajoki
> Nonono. Balrogs are related to penguins, remember?
So do they use Linux? By the name of the fellows it would be logical,
Linux is after all intented for the power users. ;-)
But what if the Balrog wasn't related to penguins? Has anyone ever
considered the possibility of his relation to Batman? Batman has wings
that he can use to glide from one place to another, maybe it was just
Balrog's cloak/some such that cast the shadow?
And for the record, I'm an agnostic on the Balrog Wings matter.
Oh, and a question: how big wings ought a bigger-than-man figure have
to be able to fly? I believe they would be huge. Wouldn't this kind of
appendices hinder movement? And if the wings wouldn't be for flying
then for what purpose?
--
My Balrog flies over the ocean / Bring back, Bring back
My Balrog flies over the sea / Oh bring back my Balrog to me, to mee!
My Balrog flies over the ocean / Bring back, Bring back
Oh bring back my Balrog to me.../ Oh bring back my Balrog to me!
Douglas Henderson
PaulB wrote:
>
> In article <39176C25...@prodigy.net>, grimgard <grim...@prodigy.net>
> writes:
>
> >Steuard Jensen wrote:
> >
> >> Quoth pbac...@aol.comnojunk (PaulB):
> >> > This leaves us with the line, "It [the Balrog] stepped forward
> >> > slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly drew itself up to a great
> >> > height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall" as the _only_
SNIP
>
> PB
>
> "... the essence of myth [is] that it have no taint of allegory to the maker
> and yet should suggest incipient allegories to the reader..."
> C. S. Lewis, having read "The Lay of Leithian"
Actually, the line "drew itself up to a great height" has me wondering.
How is it to be interpreted? Was it slouched? Did its emanation
expand? If it was so large, then how could Gandalf cross swords with
it? Can this be interpreted that it was somehow hovering?
Ahma
>So do they use Linux? By the name of the fellows it would be
>logical, Linux is after all intented for the power users. ;-)
Umm... does anyone know the word for "user" in Quenya?
>But what if the Balrog wasn't related to penguins? Has anyone ever
>considered the possibility of his relation to Batman? Batman has
>wings that he can use to glide from one place to another, maybe it
>was just Balrog's cloak/some such that cast the shadow?
No no, Batman is actually one of Saurons's vampires. His powers have
diminished since the first age, but he still has the ability to
partially change between his human and vampire form...
>And for the record, I'm an agnostic on the Balrog Wings matter.
But are you a wingist or nonwingist agnostic?
>Oh, and a question: how big wings ought a bigger-than-man figure
>have to be able to fly? I believe they would be huge. Wouldn't
>this kind of appendices hinder movement? And if the wings wouldn't
>be for flying then for what purpose?
Haven't you been reading this thread? The wings were used as flippers
to swim underwater!
--
Ahma
grimgard
Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
Yes, but you said in your previous post that Frodo thought it was a
Ringwraith, even though he knew that Ringwraiths couldn't fly, using
that argument to counter the implication that Balrogs have wings since
Gimli saw the creature in the air and thought it was a Balrog. Now I
don't believe that the passage in question lends one iota of credibility
to the wings theory, BUT isn't possible that Frodo said to himself,
"Gee, I'm almost sure that was a Ringwraith; oh, but it couldn't have
been, of course, since Ringwraiths can't fly. Silly me!"? I mean, I
don't want to get *too* nit-picky here, but there must be some reason
why Frodo didn't speak up, and this one seems as likely as any other.
grimgard
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
>The shadow only does impossible things _if_ it is thought of a something
>different than a normal shadow. If it is considered a normal shadow, then
any
>action it takes can be understood as a literary device that Tolkien uses to
>descibe the action of the balrog itself as well, but by using the shadow as
the
>subject of the clause he makes the actions more ominous. For me the two
are
>one, and actions of the shadow are only a second had viewing of actions of
the
>alrog itself. There might even be a cheap point for the pro-wing side
which
>says: why bring up extra problems the extra problems of have to deal with
>impossibilities by claiming the shadow is _not_ a normal shadow?
When the Balrog stood between the fire and the Fellowship, its shadow
"dimmed" the fire instead of blocking it. Whether it was the Balrog or the
shadow that did this, it is not normal.
Öjevind