Purely informal Balrog wings poll
jal...@ct1.nai.net
I don't know if anyone's interested...this post could fall flatter than a
pancake...BUT:
Stipulating that of course majority doesn't rule.
Stipulating that whatever we think has nothing to do with what Tolkien
intended.
I was just curious...how many think the Balrog has wings, and how many don't?
I would be glad to tabulate.
Vote (for the intellectually impaired):
WINGS YES
-or-
WINGS NO
Note that this is an Exclusive OR...YES _AND_ NO are unacceptable. Got it?
Email is probably preferable, but I will watch here as well. Two weeks, and I
post results.
hmmm?
John
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Areff D
WINGS YES
They help him stay in place and prevent leaking
Richard F. Dickson
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."
Michael Martinez
In article <199803280024...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, are...@aol.com (Areff D) wrote:
>WINGS YES
>
>They help him stay in place and prevent leaking
LOL!
What the heck.
WINGS YES.
I promise I won't post 10% of the votes <weg>.
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web
\\// Mic...@xenite.org
//\\ Martinez <http://www.xenite.org/index.htm>
// \\ENITE.org...............................................
BgBrother
i'm going to go with wings.
CFoster885
WINGS NO
I guess I am one of the only ones now, I just never imagined it with
wings.
--
Casey Foster
***
"The secret to happiness is high expectations and your own bag of chips"
-Dogbert
Olórin, Wielder of Narya
Hello,
I think this Balrog wings-poll is rather pointless.
As has been said before the scene with Gandalf and the Balrog on the
bridge of Khazad-dum conveys terror, which is set against the loveliness
of Lorien in the next chapters. I think it is as unimportant to the
story as questions like: Did Gandalf have a beard of 1 or 1.2 meters or
was the Palantir bowling or football sized?
The story doesn't lose impact whether or not the Balrog has wings. If
you picture him with wings it's all rigth, if not: so be it.
Just my thoughts,
And honestly I don't remember the scene well enough to envision the
Balrog. It is like asking me if Terror has a coat or a sweater on.
Greetings,
Olórin
-------------------------------------------------
Olórin
Wielder of Narya
Guardian of the Ruling Staff of Creation
Eradicator of Evil
Observer of Human Folly
"The Third Age was my age. I was the Enemy of Sauron; and my work is
finished. I shall go soon. The burden must lie now upon you and your
kindred."
- Gandalf the White
A.k.a. Stef Helsen
E-mail: St...@lx.student.wau.nl
Homepage: http://www.student.wau.nl/~stef
ICQ: 4809767
-------------------------------------------------
Kjartan Almenning
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote in article
<6fhhi9$g...@camel21.mindspring.com>...
> In article <199803280024...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
are...@aol.com (Areff D) wrote:
>
> >WINGS YES
> >
> >They help him stay in place and prevent leaking
>
> LOL!
>
> What the heck.
>
> WINGS YES.
>
> I promise I won't post 10% of the votes <weg>.
Don't bite off more than you can chew, Michael ;)
Let me humbly join the chorus.
WINGS YES.
So. That's it.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kjartan Almenning
kja...@vestdata.no.spam
http://www.vestdata.no/~kjaalm/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kjartan Almenning
Olórin, Wielder of Narya <st...@lx.student.wau.nl> wrote in article
<351C4CA5...@lx.student.wau.nl>...
> I think this Balrog wings-poll is rather pointless.
> As has been said before the scene with Gandalf and the Balrog on the
> bridge of Khazad-dum conveys terror, which is set against the loveliness
> of Lorien in the next chapters. I think it is as unimportant to the
> story as questions like: Did Gandalf have a beard of 1 or 1.2 meters or
> was the Palantir bowling or football sized?
> The story doesn't lose impact whether or not the Balrog has wings. If
> you picture him with wings it's all rigth, if not: so be it.
My guess is that this was done for the fun of it. Did that ever occur to
you?
KJ
Ron Ploeg
Olórin, Wielder of Narya wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I think this Balrog wings-poll is rather pointless.
> As has been said before the scene with Gandalf and the Balrog on the
> bridge of Khazad-dum conveys terror, which is set against the loveliness
> of Lorien in the next chapters. I think it is as unimportant to the
> story as questions like: Did Gandalf have a beard of 1 or 1.2 meters or
> was the Palantir bowling or football sized?
> The story doesn't lose impact whether or not the Balrog has wings. If
> you picture him with wings it's all rigth, if not: so be it.
>
>
> And honestly I don't remember the scene well enough to envision the
> Balrog. It is like asking me if Terror has a coat or a sweater on.
>
Good point. Terror hmm? Maybe the balrog is so fascinating because what
one sees is ones worst nightmare. For some this means fangs and claws,
for some this means he is able to grow greatly in size, for some this
means he shows resemblance to a demon or other devil-like shape, for
some it is so hard to picture it appears like a shadowy puff of smoke.
And wings. Yes, wings. Giant bat-like, or, giant ostrich-like wings,
or... Phew! Scary stuff!
(gulp) Ron Ploeg
David Salo
> WINGS YES
>
> They help him stay in place and prevent leaking
WINGS NO
They waste a lot of valuable paint, they make it difficult to store the
figure, and they extend into neighboring hexes, making it impossible to put
extra figures (e.g., bodyguard trolls) on his flanks.
DS
jal...@ct1.nai.net
Forgive me for responding to two people with one post, but it's easier this
way.
>
> Olorin, Wielder of Narya wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > =
>
> > I think this Balrog wings-poll is rather pointless.
>
I suppose there are really three types of Balrog/wing people, not two: those
who think it _had_ wings, those who think it _didn't_ have wings, and those
who get extremely irritated when the other two types start arguing about it.
I should obviously have made a third category for the poll:
WINGS I_PREFER_NOT_TO_DISCUSS_THE_MATTER
Olorin, I'm going to put you down with that vote, ok?
> Good point. Terror hmm? Maybe the balrog is so fascinating because what
> one sees is ones worst nightmare. For some this means fangs and claws,
> for some this means he is able to grow greatly in size, for some this
> means he shows resemblance to a demon or other devil-like shape, for
> some it is so hard to picture it appears like a shadowy puff of smoke.
> And wings. Yes, wings. Giant bat-like, or, giant ostrich-like wings,
> or... Phew! Scary stuff! =
>
> (gulp) Ron Ploeg
>
Ron, this post is unclear. You seem to be agreeing with Olorin, but towards
the end you mention wings. Please collect yourself and tell me which it is to
be? (Or should I perhaps establish a fourth vote: WINGS
I_DON'T_WISH_YOU_TO_UNDERSTAND_WHICH_WAY_I'M_VOTING? I fear if I did that a
substantial portion of us would end up voting that way, whether that was our
intent or not. What to do, what to do.)
John
P.S. -- It ain't over 'til it's over, folks. The results so far have been
amazingly close, and a perhaps surprising candidate is currently in the lead.
The Purely Informal Balrog Wings poll needs YOU!!!
Ilweran
WINGS NO
how about a poll on if he shape-changed? or if he flew? or if he was even there
at all? just suggestions.
Ilweran
*******************
Eight words the wiccan rede fulfill,
"And it harm none do as ye will"
Rolf Wagner
>WINGS NO
>
> They waste a lot of valuable paint, they make it difficult to store the
>figure, and they extend into neighboring hexes, making it impossible to put
>extra figures (e.g., bodyguard trolls) on his flanks.
>
> DS
LOL! A very interesting approach :-)
WINGS YES
I have most probably seen to many pictures of the Balrog featuring wings.
Rolf Wagner
Ron Ploeg
jal...@ct1.nai.net wrote:
>
(snips)
>
> Ron, this post is unclear. You seem to be agreeing with Olorin, but towards
> the end you mention wings. Please collect yourself and tell me which it is to
> be?
Sorry.
After careful deliberation I guess you have to put me down for:
NO_WINGS
though it does not seem conclusive to me.
Ron Ploeg
Zeke Crater
Wings. Definitely wings.
Zeke
Baruk Khazвd! Khazвd ai-mкnu!
Honolulu, Hawaii
If responding via email, please note spam-deflector in return address.
malkav
i vote FOR WINGS
-the vampire bunny
"Shirakumo ya mal...@rmta.org
Hana naki yama no http://www.nd.edu/~whelman
Haji kakushi"
-Chikamatsu Monzaemon
Simon Milligan
wings yes
Kjartan Almenning wrote:
> Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote in article
> <6fhhi9$g...@camel21.mindspring.com>...
>
> > In article <199803280024...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> are...@aol.com (Areff D) wrote:
> >
> > >WINGS YES
> > >
> > >They help him stay in place and prevent leaking
> >
Bruce Hietbrink
In article <351C4CA5...@lx.student.wau.nl>, "Olórin, Wielder of
Narya" <st...@lx.student.wau.nl> wrote:
> Hello,
>
I think it is as unimportant to the
> story as questions like: Did Gandalf have a beard of 1 or 1.2 meters or
> was the Palantir bowling or football sized?
Bowling-ball sized, darn it! Anyone who does'nt know that is a
complete idiot!
:)
Bruce Hietbrink
Michael A Wolf
wings NO
(gee, I feel almost alone :)
Randy Simcox
I know some look at this as a pointless thread, but I love these things.
Put me down for with-wings. I didn't go back and look at the wording, so
I guess this is just the way I always envisioned the scene. What are the
poll tallys so far?
Randy Simcox
Julian
WINGS YES!
"The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the
darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and
suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and it's wings were
spread from wall to wall; but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering
in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: grey and bent,
like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm."
What part of that paragraph do some people not understand? Obviously
the third sentence. There is no simile in that part of the sentence.
It does'nt even open itself up to different interpretations. To take
apart every sentence of the book trying to find some hidden or
otherwise imagined meaning is silly and pointless.
I do think the Balrog, as it stepped on the bridge stood as tall as it
could to impress and frighten Gandalf and company. To show it sensed
Gandalf's challenge and was unafraid.
As to why it didn't fly? It's wings were spread from wall to wall. Not
much flying room would there be?
Not to be sarcastic, but is my edition so old maybe that it isn't as
revised as the Wings No people seem to have? Does theirs say something
different? The first few pages of the paperback is missing, but there
is no isbn whatsoever, and it cost then 95 cents. By Ballantine Books.
Julian
Michael Martinez
In article <bnh-290398...@ppc-cam.chem.ucla.edu>, b...@chem.ucla.edu
(Bruce Hietbrink) wrote:
[with respect to Palantir sizes...]
>Bowling-ball sized, darn it! Anyone who does'nt know that is a
>complete idiot!
>
> :)
>
I'd hate to see the size of the bowling pins in Osgiliath.
the Piper
WINGS YES
I have to admit that I never used to think of the Balrog with wings,
but going back and rereading the passage - yes, it does say "its wings
were spread from wall to wall." I'm going to take that literally.
P
Ron Ploeg
Michael A Wolf wrote:
>
> wings NO
>
> (gee, I feel almost alone :)
YOU ARE NOT ALONE :)
Ron Ploeg
William
No wings, but a really huge schwantz.
--
_________________________________________________
William Cloud Hicklin "And he named him craven,
soli...@gamewood.net and lord of slaves"
_________________________________________________
A. Sieberson
wings YES
why am I doing this? I hate the Balrog! If I ran across a Balrog late at
night, I'd try to run him over with my car! (It's a Volvo--nothig hurts a
Volvo)
Annie
Wendy Zinger
William wrote:
> No wings, but a really huge schwantz.
I am not familiar with that. Is it like schlong?
Wendy
Wendy Zinger
jal...@ct1.nai.net wrote:
<snip>
> P.S. -- It ain't over 'til it's over, folks. The results so far have
> been
> amazingly close, and a perhaps surprising candidate is currently in
> the lead.
>
> The Purely Informal Balrog Wings poll needs YOU!!!
Well, after that, how can I lurk here in the wings?
WINGS_NO is my vote. I imagine the Balrog as a dark flaming creature
with fuzzy Barney slippers on.
Wendy
Richard Crawshaw
WINGS NO
Julian <ju...@ersatz.com> writes
[snip]
>"The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the
>darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and
>suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and it's wings were
>spread from wall to wall; but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering
>in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: grey and bent,
>like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm."
You forget the paragraph two paragraphs before.
"The Balrog reached the bridge. Gandalf stood in the middle of the
span, leaning on the staff in his left hand, but in his other hand
Glamdring gleamed, cold and white. His enemy halted again, facing him,
and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings. It raised the
whip, and the thongs whined and cracked. Fire came from its nostrils.
But Gandalf stood firm."
Logically (though I fully expect Michael Martenez to come up with some
means to disagree... ;-)), if it has a shadow that reaches out "like two
vast wings" then it doesn't actually _have_ wings.
So WINGS NO.
Regards
--
Richard Crawshaw
jal...@ct1.nai.net
In article <351F434F...@SnakeBite.com>,
Until today WINGS NO was in the lead, but there has been a flurry of you
infidel WINGS YES people posting today so YES is currently in first place.
Still, fewer than 60% of you think the big guy had ailerons...interesting, eh?
Anybody mind if I post the results after one week instead of two? I'm not
sure our attention span can be prolonged for the latter period (I know mine
can't).
John
Pollmaster
PIBWP (Purely Informal Balrog Wings Poll)
Get out and VOTE!!!
Kjartan Almenning
A. Sieberson <far...@SPAMANDEGGS.u.washington.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.A41.3.96a.98033...@dante31.u.washington.edu>...
Uhm.... I just chrashed my family's Volvo the other night. It was a S70...
damn, how could anybody be able to see that darn truck, no lights or
anything. Well, I am glad we have insurance. Praise be.
KJ
Michael Martinez
In article <7svz9OAjx$H1E...@crowswood.demon.co.uk>, Richard Crawshaw <ric...@crowswood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>"The Balrog reached the bridge. Gandalf stood in the middle of the
>span, leaning on the staff in his left hand, but in his other hand
>Glamdring gleamed, cold and white. His enemy halted again, facing him,
>and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings. It raised the
>whip, and the thongs whined and cracked. Fire came from its nostrils.
>But Gandalf stood firm."
>
>Logically (though I fully expect Michael Martenez to come up with some
>means to disagree... ;-)), if it has a shadow that reaches out "like two
>vast wings" then it doesn't actually _have_ wings.
Unless the wings are coming out of the shadow...just as the Balrog is really a
puff of smoke, rather than being of "man-shape, yet greater". After all,
"whatr it was could not be seen".
Matt Smith
Wings No, they dont suit him
Wendy Zinger <bii...@flash.net> wrote in article
<351FFF0D...@flash.net>...
Julian
>WINGS NO
>
>Julian <ju...@ersatz.com> writes
>[snip]
>>"The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the
>>darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and
>>suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and it's wings were
>>spread from wall to wall; but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering
>>in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: grey and bent,
>>like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm."
>
>You forget the paragraph two paragraphs before.
>
>"The Balrog reached the bridge. Gandalf stood in the middle of the
>span, leaning on the staff in his left hand, but in his other hand
>Glamdring gleamed, cold and white. His enemy halted again, facing him,
>and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings. It raised the
>whip, and the thongs whined and cracked. Fire came from its nostrils.
>But Gandalf stood firm."
>
>Logically (though I fully expect Michael Martenez to come up with some
>means to disagree... ;-)), if it has a shadow that reaches out "like two
>vast wings" then it doesn't actually _have_ wings.
>
>So WINGS NO.
>
>Regards
Good point. If we were discussing the paragraph you cited and no
other, then yes, I'd be hesitant to say that it had wings. From that
paragraph _alone. But the question is whether or not it had wings.
My paragraph I cited did indeed say that it had wings. One could also
interpret your paragraph to mean that the 'shadow about it reached out
like two vast wings' , that indeed it WAS the shadow of its vast
wings. Only until it stepped onto the bridge was it confirmed.
Also.."but still Gandalf could be seen', would seem to imply that the
shadow of its wings was blocking out the light of the fires, thereby
obscuring Gandalf from the company's view. But he was'nt. The company
could still see him. Because of the glow from 'Glamdring gleamed, cold
and white'?
But would'nt the light of the fires have gone thru its wings to
illuminate Gandalf if indeed they were'nt wings but just shadow?
thoughts?
I know, I know..just Wings Yes or otherwise..but you guys got me
interested now.
J
William
Julian wrote:
>
>
>
> Good point. If we were discussing the paragraph you cited and no
> other, then yes, I'd be hesitant to say that it had wings. From that
> paragraph _alone. But the question is whether or not it had wings.
> My paragraph I cited did indeed say that it had wings. One could also
> interpret your paragraph to mean that the 'shadow about it reached out
>
> like two vast wings' , that indeed it WAS the shadow of its vast
> wings. Only until it stepped onto the bridge was it confirmed.
>
> Also.."but still Gandalf could be seen', would seem to imply that the
> shadow of its wings was blocking out the light of the fires, thereby
> obscuring Gandalf from the company's view. But he was'nt. The company
>
> could still see him. Because of the glow from 'Glamdring gleamed, cold
>
> and white'?
>
> But would'nt the light of the fires have gone thru its wings to
> illuminate Gandalf if indeed they were'nt wings but just shadow?
>
> thoughts?
>
> I know, I know..just Wings Yes or otherwise..but you guys got me
> interested now.
>
> J
But shadow in Tolkien can sometimes be an Unlight, blocking light from
passing. Also, the phraase "but still Gandalf could be seen" may be
illuminated by the C-text, which reads "The Balrog halted facing him,
and the shadow about him [Gandalf] reached out like two vast wings."
Matt Gable
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Julian wrote:
>"The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the
>darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and
>suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were
>spread from wall to wall; but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering
>in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: grey and bent,
>like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm."
>
> What part of that paragraph do some people not understand? Obviously
> the third sentence. There is no simile in that part of the sentence.
True. It's a metaphor, not a simile. The first time wings were mentioned,
Tolkien used the word "like," so it was a simile. The second time, he
got a little more dramatic and shifted to a metaphor.
Wings don't fit any of the descriptions of the Balrog's actions. Why
would it pause and leap over the flaming chasm instead of flying? Why
would it "race" down the huge hallway instead of flying? Why would it
bother duelling Gandalf if it could just fly over the chasm, get behind
the Company, and chase them all back to the orc and troll horde? Or
attack the Ring-bearer directly, if it was after the Ring?
Why would Gandalf take up such a precarious defensive position against a
winged enemy? Why would the Balrog fall into the chasm if it had wings?
If its wings were too big to fly out of a 50' wide chasm, how'd it ever
get around in the Mines? And, finally, Gandalf fought the Balrog until
it fled up the Endless Stair: if it was trying to get away, why did it
turn at bay at the top of Durin's Tower instead of just flying back to
the Gate?
Against all these points are two arguments for wings. The first argument
interprets the above metaphor as a literal description, and the second
takes "passed over," in the Silmarillion, to mean "flew over." Both
arguments take Tolkien's words too literally, overlooking the fact that
he wrote in an archaic style, and they are not logically consistent with
the rest of what Tolkien wrote.
Picture Balrogs with wings if you must, but that's not how Tolkien
described them.
WINGS NO
Gable
Aaron Pound
Wings yes, both because it makes him look more demonic and because the
text states his "Wings stretched wall to wall", which I have chosen to
take literally. His entire figure is swathed in falme and darkness
though so they would be hard to make out.
Aaron J. Pound, Esq.
CFoster885
>why am I doing this? I hate the Balrog! If I ran across a Balrog late at
>night, I'd try to run him over with my car! (It's a Volvo--nothig hurts a
>Volvo)
A volvo would stall out running me over, it wouldn't even bruise a Balrog
--
Casey Foster
***
"The secret to happiness is high expectations and your own bag of chips"
-Dogbert
CFoster885
>No wings, but a really huge schwantz.
LOL!
CFoster885
WINGS_NO
But they would help him on corners.
Julian
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:10:17 -0500, Matt Gable <mga...@acpub.duke.edu>
wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Julian wrote:
>
>>"The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the
>>darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and
>>suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were
>>spread from wall to wall; but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering
>>in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: grey and bent,
>>like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm."
>>
>> What part of that paragraph do some people not understand? Obviously
>> the third sentence. There is no simile in that part of the sentence.
>
>True. It's a metaphor, not a simile. The first time wings were mentioned,
>Tolkien used the word "like," so it was a simile. The second time, he
>got a little more dramatic and shifted to a metaphor.
>
>Wings don't fit any of the descriptions of the Balrog's actions. Why
>would it pause and leap over the flaming chasm instead of flying? Why
>would it "race" down the huge hallway instead of flying? Why would it
>bother duelling Gandalf if it could just fly over the chasm, get behind
>the Company, and chase them all back to the orc and troll horde? Or
>attack the Ring-bearer directly, if it was after the Ring?
Perhaps, being confined to Moria, it got used to not using its wings
as much.
>Why would Gandalf take up such a precarious defensive position against a
>winged enemy? Why would the Balrog fall into the chasm if it had wings?
>If its wings were too big to fly out of a 50' wide chasm, how'd it ever
>get around in the Mines? And, finally, Gandalf fought the Balrog until
>it fled up the Endless Stair: if it was trying to get away, why did it
>turn at bay at the top of Durin's Tower instead of just flying back to
>the Gate?
Damn it..you're convincing me. I was going to answer that it 'glided'
down the chasm, all the while Gandalf was smacking it with his nifty
sword.
>Against all these points are two arguments for wings. The first argument
>interprets the above metaphor as a literal description, and the second
>takes "passed over," in the Silmarillion, to mean "flew over." Both
>arguments take Tolkien's words too literally, overlooking the fact that
>he wrote in an archaic style, and they are not logically consistent with
>the rest of what Tolkien wrote.
>
>Picture Balrogs with wings if you must, but that's not how Tolkien
>described them.
>
>WINGS NO
>
>
>Gable
I HAVE IT! BALROGS AND PENGUINS ARE OF THE SAME FAMILY! USELESS
WINGS!!!
>
>
WINGS MAYBE
Michael Martinez
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.98033...@bio3.acpub.duke.edu>, Matt Gable <mga...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Julian wrote:
>
>>"The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the
>>darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and
>>suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were
>>spread from wall to wall; but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering
>>in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: grey and bent,
>>like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm."
>>
>> What part of that paragraph do some people not understand? Obviously
>> the third sentence. There is no simile in that part of the sentence.
>
>True. It's a metaphor, not a simile. The first time wings were mentioned,
>Tolkien used the word "like," so it was a simile. The second time, he
>got a little more dramatic and shifted to a metaphor.
A metaphor must stand for something, and in this case there is nothing for
such a metaphor to represent.
>Wings don't fit any of the descriptions of the Balrog's actions. Why
>would it pause and leap over the flaming chasm instead of flying?
It didn't pause for the leap, and why should it have flown? It's wings, when
fully extended (whether you accept that it grew in size or not), stretched
from wall to wall. It could not possibly have flown through the hall. The
pillars would have prevented that.
>Why would it "race" down the huge hallway instead of flying?
Why should it have flown?
> Why would it bother duelling Gandalf if it could just fly over the chasm,
>get behind the Company, and chase them all back to the orc and troll horde?
Because someone had just dropped a mountain on its head an hour earlier and it
probably realized it had to deal with THAT problem first.
>Or attack the Ring-bearer directly, if it was after the Ring?
How do you know it was after the Ring?
>Why would Gandalf take up such a precarious defensive position against a
>winged enemy?
Because there wasn't room for the wall-spanning wings to allow the Balrog to
fly over Gandalf's head. Besides which, he had just dropped a mountain on the
thing's head an hour earlier and, realizing it had survived the experience, he
probably figured that no one else in the Fellowship stood a chance against it.
>Why would the Balrog fall into the chasm if it had wings?
Because there was no room for it to fly, and probably also because it wanted
to take Gandalf down with it. The Balrog knew what lay at the bottom of the
chasm and undoubtedly felt it could survive the fall (which it did).
>If its wings were too big to fly out of a 50' wide chasm, how'd it ever
>get around in the Mines?
It kept them retracted -- that's why they came out of the shadow. It was
extending its wings.
>And, finally, Gandalf fought the Balrog until it fled up the Endless Stair:
>if it was trying to get away, why did it turn at bay at the top of Durin's
>Tower instead of just flying back to the Gate?
With Gandalf hacking at it all the way, maybe it was tired and wounded.
>Against all these points are two arguments for wings. The first argument
>interprets the above metaphor as a literal description, and the second
>takes "passed over," in the Silmarillion, to mean "flew over."
You need to show that it's a metaphor. Posing questions which fail to take
into account the details of the story doesn't make the passage a metaphor.
>Both arguments take Tolkien's words too literally, overlooking the fact
>that he wrote in an archaic style, and they are not logically consistent
>with the rest of what Tolkien wrote.
What's illogical is to assume that Tolkien was somehow writing metaphorically
at all. Metaphor is quite rare in his stories. He wasn't trying to weave a
tapestry of references. His style is straightforward and quite concise.
>Picture Balrogs with wings if you must, but that's not how Tolkien
>described them.
Absolutely that's how Tolkien described them, even if you could make a case
for your metaphor (which, IMHO, would take some doing).
I'd like to see the argument for the passage being a metaphor. That would be
an interesting approach that no one has taken before.
Michael Martinez
In article <35202ca8...@cnews.newsguy.com>, ju...@ersatz.com (Julian)
wrote:
[snip]
>>Why would Gandalf take up such a precarious defensive position against a
>>winged enemy? Why would the Balrog fall into the chasm if it had wings?
>>If its wings were too big to fly out of a 50' wide chasm, how'd it ever
>>get around in the Mines? And, finally, Gandalf fought the Balrog until
>>it fled up the Endless Stair: if it was trying to get away, why did it
>>turn at bay at the top of Durin's Tower instead of just flying back to
>>the Gate?
>
>Damn it..you're convincing me. I was going to answer that it 'glided'
>down the chasm, all the while Gandalf was smacking it with his nifty
>sword.
It didn't have to glide, and the above argument has quite a few holes in it.
[snip]
>I HAVE IT! BALROGS AND PENGUINS ARE OF THE SAME FAMILY! USELESS
>WINGS!!!
Except they used those wings to fly over Hithlum.
Michael Martinez
In article <6fp60b$71v$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jal...@ct1.nai.net wrote:
>Anybody mind if I post the results after one week instead of two? I'm not
>sure our attention span can be prolonged for the latter period (I know mine
>can't).
This debate has been raging since December if not November. Surely one more
week won't matter? People will probably be casting votes into that period
anyway.
I'm surprised the NO votes were leading, unless you got more by email. I have
seen very few in the news group.
Michael Martinez
In article <352022F5...@gamewood.net>, soli...@gamewood.net wrote:
> But shadow in Tolkien can sometimes be an Unlight, blocking light from
>passing. Also, the phraase "but still Gandalf could be seen" may be
>illuminated by the C-text, which reads "The Balrog halted facing him,
>and the shadow about him [Gandalf] reached out like two vast wings."
The C-Text is not the authoritative reference, however (and most people
reading your article may not have the C-Text to refer to anyway).
It is quite clearly documented that Tolkien added the wings to the later
paragraph before the book was published and well after the text you refer to
was superseded by a later version.
It is evident from the story that the wings and the shadow cannot at first be
distinguished from one another, but Tolkien went to the trouble to make them
distinct. That is completely consistent with the way he reveals the Balrog,
bit by bit, interspersed with movement as it approaches the Company of the
Ring and thus becomes more visible to them (especially after it leaps across
the fire).
Graeme Quinn
Matt Gable wrote in message ...
>
>
>Wings don't fit any of the descriptions of the Balrog's actions. Why
>would it pause and leap over the flaming chasm instead of flying? Why
>would it "race" down the huge hallway instead of flying? Why would it
>bother duelling Gandalf if it could just fly over the chasm, get behind
>the Company, and chase them all back to the orc and troll horde? Or
>attack the Ring-bearer directly, if it was after the Ring?
>
So I suppose that by using the same logic that we can say that because
ostriches and penguins
do not fly that they also do not have wings.
All the above actions do is infer(not prove) that the Balrog did not have
usable wings.
Graeme Quinn
Michael Martinez
Just keep in mind that the above description of the Balrog's behavior bears
little resemblance (if any) to the way Tolkien described it.
prov...@otenet.gr
In article <199803280401...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
cfost...@aol.com (CFoster885) wrote:
>
> WINGS NO
>
> I guess I am one of the only ones now, I just never imagined it with
> wings.
> --
>
> Casey Foster
> ***
> "The secret to happiness is high expectations and your own bag of chips"
> -Dogbert
>
WINGS NO
You're not alone out there, Casey. I may be the victim of poor translation or
guilty of sloppy reading, but when i first read the LOTR, I was under the
impression the Balrog caused a shadow *like* wings. I guess I imagined the
Balrog more like a spirit, than an actual creature (which also isn't exactly
correct).
Of course, my translated LOTR version also refers to the B. as
Barlong...(to laugh or cry? Can't decide...sigh)
Michael was once so nice to point out I shouldn't need to buy the original
english version to take part in this newsgroup, but I may have to do so after
all.
Anyway, I'm not contributing an expert opinion (hah!) to the whole lenghty "Do
B. have wings" discussion, just an impression I had. And boy, do these first
impressions stick around in the mind...
Claudia
Colonel Panic
On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 01:51:20 GMT, Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org>
wrote:
>>WINGS!!!
>
>Except they used those wings to fly over Hithlum.
Penguins flew over Hithlum? I just finished re-reading the Silmarillion,
and I must have missed that part.
Wait, weren't those Morgoth's 'Fell War-Penguins', bred near Helcaraxe?
It's all coming back to me, now...
--
Re: Eggo's with Nutella - "Ritzy European chocolate hazelnut spread on
shitty american convenience food toaster waffles...Uhh...How can something
so wrong taste so damn good?"
- Fell.Head <alc...@teleport.com>
*=:Reply to: A B S I N T H E (at) T E L E P O R T (dot) C O M:=*
Chisoncar
Wings yes.
joe
Michael Martinez
In article <slrn6i1b1...@user1.teleport.com>, ro...@127.0.0.0 wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 01:51:20 GMT, Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org>
>wrote:
>>In article <35202ca8...@cnews.newsguy.com>, ju...@ersatz.com (Julian)
>>wrote:
>>>I HAVE IT! BALROGS AND PENGUINS ARE OF THE SAME FAMILY! USELESS
>>>WINGS!!!
>>
>>Except they used those wings to fly over Hithlum.
>
>Penguins flew over Hithlum? I just finished re-reading the Silmarillion,
>and I must have missed that part.
Actually, the Penguin flew in a helicopter.
However, the passage in THE SILMARILLION was not written by J.R.R. Tolkien.
At least, it's not documented as such in THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH. Tolkien
had the Balrogs fly over Hithlum (although some folks are now arguing in
rec.arts.books.tolkien that Shakespeare and Pegasus prove that Tolkien really
meant the Balrogs were a puff of smoke, or something like that).
>Wait, weren't those Morgoth's 'Fell War-Penguins', bred near Helcaraxe?
>It's all coming back to me, now...
Wrong hemisphere. You're thinking of the Foul Orcas.
Matt Gable
OK Martinez, now you have gone too far. Your angle is always to stick
to a close reading of the text, but this time you have overreached and
become myopic. I will now demonstrate that Tolkien's second use of the
word "wings" was metaphorical, and that all your attempts to interpret
that word literally lead to an impossibly strained, and clearly
incorrect, conclusion that the Balrog had wings.
On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, Michael Martinez wrote:
> What's illogical is to assume that Tolkien was somehow writing metaphorically
> at all. Metaphor is quite rare in his stories. He wasn't trying to weave a
> tapestry of references. His style is straightforward and quite concise.
Metaphor is not rare in Tolkien's stories. Here are several examples
from The Lord of the Rings:
1) "If Gondor, Boromir, has been a stalwart tower, we have played another
part."
2) "...a trumpet-voice, a burning brand,
a weary pilgrim on the road."
3) "It is not yet five days since the bitter tidings came that Theodred
your son was slain upon the West Marches: your right-hand, Second Marshal
of the Mark."
4) "And this I also say: you are our captain and our banner."
5) "King of Angmar long ago, Sorcerer, Ringwraith, Lord of the Nazgul, a
spear of terror in the hand of Sauron, shadow of despair."
6) "...the grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass..."
> I'd like to see the argument for the passage being a metaphor. That would be
> an interesting approach that no one has taken before.
I am claiming, and you are disputing, that wings are a metaphor for
the Balrog's shadow. The shadow was not wings, any more than Gondor a
tower, Gandalf a burning brand, Theodred a hand, Gandalf a banner, the
Witch-king a spear, or the rain glass. They're all metaphors.
One sentence is the sole source of all the trouble:
"...suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were
spread from wall to wall..."
Two paragraphs before, Tolkien was using wings as a simile for the
shadow: "His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it
reached out like two vast wings."
A metaphor works just like a simile, except the word "like" is not used.
Tolkien, still speaking of the shadow, used a metaphor (which is slightly
more dramatic) to compare the shadow to wings the second time. There's
no reason he couldn't use a metaphor there: it's consistent with his
writing style and comes at an appropriate point in the story. To
determine whether he actually meant the wings as metaphorical or literal,
given that both are possible interpretations of the wording of the second
sentence, we can look to the surrounding passage for context.
Everything suggests the wings were not literal. We have a long list of
points where it makes more sense if the Balrog didn't have wings.
You've presented counterarguments, and I refute them all, below. Taken
as a whole, the evidence is clear that either the Balrog didn't have
wings, or else Tolkien's account of the duel doesn't make sense. And how
many people on this ng think Tolkien doesn't make sense?
Gable
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.98033...@bio3.acpub.duke.edu>, Matt Gable <mga...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
> >On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Julian wrote:
> >
> >>"The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the
> >>darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and
> >>suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were
> >>spread from wall to wall; but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering
> >>in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: grey and bent,
> >>like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm."
> >>
> >> What part of that paragraph do some people not understand? Obviously
> >> the third sentence. There is no simile in that part of the sentence.
> >
> >True. It's a metaphor, not a simile. The first time wings were mentioned,
> >Tolkien used the word "like," so it was a simile. The second time, he
> >got a little more dramatic and shifted to a metaphor.
>
> A metaphor must stand for something, and in this case there is nothing for
> such a metaphor to represent.
Tolkien was speaking metaphorically of the Balrog's shadow.
> >Wings don't fit any of the descriptions of the Balrog's actions. Why
> >would it pause and leap over the flaming chasm instead of flying?
>
> It didn't pause for the leap, and why should it have flown? It's wings, when
> fully extended (whether you accept that it grew in size or not), stretched
> from wall to wall. It could not possibly have flown through the hall. The
> pillars would have prevented that.
"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 pause
is in contrast to the rush of the leap. Minor point.
As for the wings being too big to use, see below.
> >Why would it "race" down the huge hallway instead of flying?
>
> Why should it have flown?
It should have flown to catch the Company quicker, before they could
escape through the outer passage or take up a defensive posture.
> > Why would it bother duelling Gandalf if it could just fly over the chasm,
> >get behind the Company, and chase them all back to the orc and troll horde?
>
> Because someone had just dropped a mountain on its head an hour earlier and it
> probably realized it had to deal with THAT problem first.
This is not a reason for giving up the huge tactical advantage of
flight. It could have swooped down on Gandalf from the side and either
killed him with its sword or knocked him into the chasm. It would have
been much easier and much better tactics than trying to win a sword fight.
> >Or attack the Ring-bearer directly, if it was after the Ring?
>
> How do you know it was after the Ring?
I don't. If it was, however, it could have flown straight to the
Ring-bearer and skipped an annoying and possibly fatal duel with one of
the Maiar.
> >Why would Gandalf take up such a precarious defensive position against a
> >winged enemy?
>
> Because there wasn't room for the wall-spanning wings to allow the Balrog to
> fly over Gandalf's head. Besides which, he had just dropped a mountain on the
> thing's head an hour earlier and, realizing it had survived the experience, he
> probably figured that no one else in the Fellowship stood a chance against it.
See below regarding lack of room for wings. My point about Gandalf's
position is that it was only a good defensive position against a creature
that had to pass over the Bridge on foot. Against a flying opponent, it
just stuck him out there in a precarious and indefensible spot. He would
have done better to block the doorway behind him while the Company escaped.
> >Why would the Balrog fall into the chasm if it had wings?
>
> Because there was no room for it to fly, and probably also because it wanted
> to take Gandalf down with it. The Balrog knew what lay at the bottom of the
> chasm and undoubtedly felt it could survive the fall (which it did).
>
> >If its wings were too big to fly out of a 50' wide chasm, how'd it ever
> >get around in the Mines?
>
> It kept them retracted -- that's why they came out of the shadow. It was
> extending its wings.
Your argument reaches a nadir here. Do you honestly expect us to believe
that wall-spanning wings could be sufficiently folded to allow them to
pass through the tunnels of Moria? Or are you going back to the
size-changing argument in your heroic effort to avoid admitting the thing
didn't have wings at all?
> >And, finally, Gandalf fought the Balrog until it fled up the Endless Stair:
> >if it was trying to get away, why did it turn at bay at the top of Durin's
> >Tower instead of just flying back to the Gate?
>
> With Gandalf hacking at it all the way, maybe it was tired and wounded.
Sure. Gandalf conveniently hacked off its wings right before they'd be
of real use. He always was a clever cuss.
Bill Lazar
a big yes from Me
bill
jal...@ct1.nai.net
In article <6fpio3$4...@camel19.mindspring.com>,
Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote:
>
> In article <6fp60b$71v$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jal...@ct1.nai.net wrote:
> >Anybody mind if I post the results after one week instead of two? I'm not
> >sure our attention span can be prolonged for the latter period (I know mine
> >can't).
>
> This debate has been raging since December if not November. Surely one more
> week won't matter? People will probably be casting votes into that period
> anyway.
>
OK, I'll stick to the original plan then. Two weeks.
> I'm surprised the NO votes were leading, unless you got more by email. I
have
> seen very few in the news group.
>
None so blind as he who will not see or something like that. Wishful thinking
I'm afraid, Michael. I _did_ receive a few NO votes via email (and fewer YES
ones), but if you just count through the posts it's clear that it's pretty
close.
Don't worry -- I promise not to cheat.
John
jal...@ct1.nai.net
In article <199803302339...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Please, no voting twice. I am keeping track of all email addresses, etc., so
that no one slips one by me (usually alarmingly easy to do).
I appreciate that you're on the side of Right, Justice, and the American Way
(i.e., WINGS NO), but this just makes it tougher.
Thanks :-)
jal...@ct1.nai.net
[big snip]
> >
> WINGS MAYBE
>
<sigh> Hi Julian. Is this a joke or are you changing your vote? I'm reading
this whole thread, ya know.
jal...@ct1.nai.net
In article <6fqbnn$2...@camel19.mindspring.com>,
Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote:
>
> However, the passage in THE SILMARILLION was not written by J.R.R. Tolkien.
> At least, it's not documented as such in THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH.
Tolkien
> had the Balrogs fly over Hithlum (although some folks are now arguing in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien that Shakespeare and Pegasus prove that Tolkien
really
> meant the Balrogs were a puff of smoke, or something like that).
>
Michael, you know it's not as clear-cut as you're making it out to be.
"Winged speed" doesn't _have_ to mean wings, although it very well may. It
_could_ just mean very quickly. Please don't present it as quite so
cut-and-dried.
jal...@ct1.nai.net
In article <6fpi73$4...@camel19.mindspring.com>,
Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote:
>
>
> >Both arguments take Tolkien's words too literally, overlooking the fact
> >that he wrote in an archaic style, and they are not logically consistent
> >with the rest of what Tolkien wrote.
>
metaphorically
> at all. Metaphor is quite rare in his stories. He wasn't trying to weave a
> tapestry of references. His style is straightforward and quite concise.
>
Hogwash. So when Frodo advances against Shelob holding a "star" in his hand,
you're maintaining that that's literally what he was holding? Metaphor is
employed constantly, particularly at dramatic moments.
>
> I'd like to see the argument for the passage being a metaphor. That would
be
> an interesting approach that no one has taken before.
>
How can you possibly say this? That's the approach that has _always_ been
taken.
William
I might as well reintroduce into this tussle the interesting fact that
in "The Fall of Gondolin" (1916-17), the Balrogs needed huge mechanical
dragons to breach or climb over the walls of the City. I suppose that
the Balrogs may have grown wings later, but clearly as first conceived
they didn't have them.
The Woolly Rhinocerous
Wings, perhaps ( of the black shadowy variety )
flying NO.
There are no unambigous statements of Balrogs flying ( all
those shown so far didn't imply to me airborne travel ) though lots of
clear leaping and falling.
As an aside, can someone refer me to the reference that states that ALL
mair can change form, I just remember Radagast and Sauron being specially
noted as possessing this ability.
Matt
It's not wise to upset a snail,
For they are subtle and slow to do anything.
Noldo
Kjartan Almenning skrev i meddelandet
<01bd5c20$72a70820$4260...@hugleik.vestdata.no>...
>
>
>A. Sieberson <far...@SPAMANDEGGS.u.washington.edu> wrote in article
><Pine.A41.3.96a.98033...@dante31.u.washington.edu>...
>
>> wings YES
>>
>> why am I doing this? I hate the Balrog! If I ran across a Balrog late
>at
>> night, I'd try to run him over with my car! (It's a Volvo--nothig hurts
>a
>> Volvo)
>
>damn, how could anybody be able to see that darn truck, no lights or
>anything. Well, I am glad we have insurance. Praise be.
>
>KJ
It's not "nothing hurts a Volvo". It's "nothing hurts the people _inside_ a
Volvo". You're lucky you had a Volvo, otherwise you might had got hurt. (I
assume, and very much hope, you didn't.)
At least we make better cars in Sweden than you do in Norway! (You'd better
not start making any, either! ;-))
/ Daniel Andreasson
P.S. WINGS YES (I just put that there to make this message relevant to this
ng. :-))
Michael Martinez
In article <6fqr6u$j3m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jal...@ct1.nai.net wrote:
>In article <6fqbnn$2...@camel19.mindspring.com>,
> Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote:
>>
>> However, the passage in THE SILMARILLION was not written by J.R.R. Tolkien.
>> At least, it's not documented as such in THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH.
>> Tolkien had the Balrogs fly over Hithlum (although some folks are now
>> arguing in rec.arts.books.tolkien that Shakespeare and Pegasus prove
>> that Tolkien really meant the Balrogs were a puff of smoke, or something
>> like that).
>>
>
>Michael, you know it's not as clear-cut as you're making it out to be.
>"Winged speed" doesn't _have_ to mean wings, although it very well may. It
>_could_ just mean very quickly. Please don't present it as quite so
>cut-and-dried.
John,
It's not just "winged speed". It's "arose", "passed over", AND "winged
speed", in addition to the wings stretching from wall to wall.
Tolkien doesn't describe any unwinged, non-flying creatures in these terms.
People are just being obstinate about this. Which is fine. I can be
obstinate, too. :)
Michael Martinez
In article <3521038D...@gamewood.net>, soli...@gamewood.net wrote:
>I might as well reintroduce into this tussle the interesting fact that
>in "The Fall of Gondolin" (1916-17), the Balrogs needed huge mechanical
>dragons to breach or climb over the walls of the City. I suppose that
>the Balrogs may have grown wings later, but clearly as first conceived
>they didn't have them.
Then I might as well point out that THOSE Balrogs are not the same as the
later Balrogs, just as THOSE dragons are not the same as the later dragons,
just as THAT Gondolin is not the same as the later Gondolin, and THOSE
Gondolindrim are not the same as the later Gondolindrim, etc., etc.
There is really no direct connection between the Balrogs of "The Fall of
Gondolin" and the Balrogs of THE SILMARILLION and THE LORD OF THE RINGS.
jal...@ct1.nai.net
In article <6fpikr$4...@camel19.mindspring.com>,
Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote:
>
> The C-Text is not the authoritative reference, however (and most people
> reading your article may not have the C-Text to refer to anyway).
>
> It is quite clearly documented that Tolkien added the wings to the later
> paragraph before the book was published and well after the text you refer to
> was superseded by a later version.
>
Which brings up something I've been wondering about ever since I got my copy
of HoME and saw how constantly in a state of flux the mythology was; i.e.,
what is considered "authoritative" in this group? The latest writing of
Tolkien on a particular subject, or whatever was current as of publication of
LotR or what exactly?
John
(who's still trying to get used to the name Bingo Baggins)
jal...@ct1.nai.net
In article <Pine.SGI.3.96.980331...@spencer.nott.ac.uk>,
The Woolly Rhinocerous <etx...@thmech.nottingham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Wings, perhaps ( of the black shadowy variety )
> Matt
>
Matt, is this a WINGS YES vote?
John
Michael Martinez
In article <6fqrhm$jg3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jal...@ct1.nai.net wrote:
>In article <6fpi73$4...@camel19.mindspring.com>,
> Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote:
>> >Both arguments take Tolkien's words too literally, overlooking the fact
>> >that he wrote in an archaic style, and they are not logically consistent
>> >with the rest of what Tolkien wrote.
>>
>> What's illogical is to assume that Tolkien was somehow writing
>> metaphorically at all. Metaphor is quite rare in his stories.
>> He wasn't trying to weave a tapestry of references. His style is
>> straightforward and quite concise.
>>
>
>Hogwash. So when Frodo advances against Shelob holding a "star" in his hand,
>you're maintaining that that's literally what he was holding? Metaphor is
>employed constantly, particularly at dramatic moments.
Prove that. Don't just say "Hogwash". That's a bunch of nonsense.
You're just not going to find much metaphor in the story. If you could, most
people wouldn't have a clue to what's going on, and there would be endless
volumes of explanations of the metaphors as there are with Lewis's Narnia
books. And I don't mean critical analyses -- I mean reference books. I
happen to own one for Narnia and could easily buy several more. There are
none for Tolkien, and that is because metaphor is so rarely used by him.
And in this particular case, he refers to the phial as "the star-glass" (or
has the characters do so) several times in preparation for the statement "then
holding the star aloft and the bright sword advanced, Frodo, hobbit of the
Shire, walked steadily down to meet its eyes". And that is a highly atypical
sentence structure for Tolkien, too.
>> I'd like to see the argument for the passage being a metaphor. That would
>> be an interesting approach that no one has taken before.
>>
>
>How can you possibly say this? That's the approach that has _always_ been
>taken.
I've never seen such a discussion. Merely claiming that something is a
metaphor is not an argument that it is.
Michael Martinez
Snippage has occurred throughout.
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.980331...@bio2.acpub.duke.edu>,
Matt Gable <mga...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>OK Martinez, now you have gone too far.
Okay, Gable, them's fightin' words.
>Your angle is always to stick to a close reading of the text, but this time
>you have overreached and become myopic.
Well, at least we're being dispassionate about this. I can always appreciate
how people refrain from taking their disagreements over the book to the
personal level.
>I will now demonstrate that Tolkien's second use of the word "wings" was
>metaphorical, and that all your attempts to interpret that word literally
>lead to an impossibly strained, and clearly incorrect, conclusion that the
>Balrog had wings.
>
>On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, Michael Martinez wrote:
>
>> What's illogical is to assume that Tolkien was somehow writing metaphorically
>
>> at all. Metaphor is quite rare in his stories. He wasn't trying to weave a
>> tapestry of references. His style is straightforward and quite concise.
>
>Metaphor is not rare in Tolkien's stories. Here are several examples
>from The Lord of the Rings:
>
>1) "If Gondor, Boromir, has been a stalwart tower, we have played another
>part."
>
>2) "...a trumpet-voice, a burning brand,
> a weary pilgrim on the road."
>
>3) "It is not yet five days since the bitter tidings came that Theodred
>your son was slain upon the West Marches: your right-hand, Second Marshal
>of the Mark."
>
>4) "And this I also say: you are our captain and our banner."
>
>5) "King of Angmar long ago, Sorcerer, Ringwraith, Lord of the Nazgul, a
>spear of terror in the hand of Sauron, shadow of despair."
>
>6) "...the grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass..."
Six examples of metaphor out of 1,000,000+ words. That's not a very good
argument for the frequency of metaphor in Tolkien. Try again.
>> I'd like to see the argument for the passage being a metaphor. That would be
>> an interesting approach that no one has taken before.
>
>I am claiming, and you are disputing, that wings are a metaphor for
>the Balrog's shadow. The shadow was not wings, any more than Gondor a
>tower, Gandalf a burning brand, Theodred a hand, Gandalf a banner, the
>Witch-king a spear, or the rain glass. They're all metaphors.
No, the shadow was a very real part of the Balrog, just as the wings are. You
might as well argue that a dragon's scales were metaphor.
>One sentence is the sole source of all the trouble:
>
>"...suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were
>spread from wall to wall..."
Nope. There are other sentences as well, such as the sentence Tolkien wrote
which has the Balrogs flying over Hithlum; such as the sentence Tolkien wrote
saying the Balrog could not be seen; etc.
>Two paragraphs before, Tolkien was using wings as a simile for the
>shadow: "His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it
>reached out like two vast wings."
>
>A metaphor works just like a simile, except the word "like" is not used.
Nope. A metaphor does not require "like", and in fact if "like" is used the
metaphor is weakened and most often (if not always) simply becomes a simile.
>Tolkien, still speaking of the shadow, used a metaphor (which is slightly
>more dramatic) to compare the shadow to wings the second time. There's
>no reason he couldn't use a metaphor there: it's consistent with his
>writing style and comes at an appropriate point in the story. To
>determine whether he actually meant the wings as metaphorical or literal,
>given that both are possible interpretations of the wording of the second
>sentence, we can look to the surrounding passage for context.
You'll need to show the metaphor is there. First, you'll need to show the
wings were not real. To do that, you'll have to show that Balrogs don't have
wings. To do that, you'll have to do better than Bill Hicklin at showing the
Hithlum passage doesn't have winged Balrogs flying over Hithlum.
If you cannot do that, you cannot show these wings are metaphorical.
Everything so far suggests the wings were there: the chronology of the
Balrog's development, the style of Tolkien's presentation of the Balrog to the
reader, and the other significant passage which has the Balrogs flying over
Hithlum.
>Everything suggests the wings were not literal. We have a long list of
>points where it makes more sense if the Balrog didn't have wings.
I haven't seen them. What I've seen are contrived arguments which don't
address all the facts, and which often are built on assumptions. The
assumptions are not justified, i.e., no one has been able to show that they
are correct.
>> A metaphor must stand for something, and in this case there is nothing for
>> such a metaphor to represent.
>
>Tolkien was speaking metaphorically of the Balrog's shadow.
No. He spoke of the shadow clearly and distinctly in separate terms:
"The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but
the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge,
and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings
were spread from wall to wall...."
Notice that "darkness" and "wings" are in separate sentences. I add nothing
to this passage, do not try to argue that it's doing anything other than what
it is doing, and don't discount the presence of any other observations.
>> >Wings don't fit any of the descriptions of the Balrog's actions. Why
>> >would it pause and leap over the flaming chasm instead of flying?
>>
>> It didn't pause for the leap, and why should it have flown? It's wings, when
>
>> fully extended (whether you accept that it grew in size or not), stretched
>> from wall to wall. It could not possibly have flown through the hall. The
>> pillars would have prevented that.
>
>"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 pause
>is in contrast to the rush of the leap. Minor point.
There is no pause in the text. You are reading it into the text. The Balrog
doesn't have to pause in order to leap, so the leap is not implying a pause.
>> >Why would it "race" down the huge hallway instead of flying?
>>
>> Why should it have flown?
>
>It should have flown to catch the Company quicker, before they could
>escape through the outer passage or take up a defensive posture.
That makes no sense. It overtook the Company in the story. And given that
its wings stretched from wall to wall, it would have had a problem trying to
fly inside the hall anyway. Flying would have *slowed it down*.
>> > Why would it bother duelling Gandalf if it could just fly over the chasm,
>> >get behind the Company, and chase them all back to the orc and troll horde?
>>
>> Because someone had just dropped a mountain on its head an hour earlier and
>> it probably realized it had to deal with THAT problem first.
>
>This is not a reason for giving up the huge tactical advantage of
>flight.
There is no tactical advantage in trying to fly in an area where flight is not
possible because of the size of one's wings. If a full-grown California
Condor can fly inside a shoe box, you might have a point. But a condor cannot
fly inside a shoe box, so you don't have a point.
>> >Or attack the Ring-bearer directly, if it was after the Ring?
>>
>> How do you know it was after the Ring?
>
>I don't. If it was, however, it could have flown straight to the
>Ring-bearer and skipped an annoying and possibly fatal duel with one of
>the Maiar.
You keep assuming that it had the room to fly. Show that it did so, with
wings that stretched from wall to wall.
>> >Why would Gandalf take up such a precarious defensive position against a
>> >winged enemy?
>>
>> Because there wasn't room for the wall-spanning wings to allow the Balrog to
>> fly over Gandalf's head. Besides which, he had just dropped a mountain on
>> the thing's head an hour earlier and, realizing it had survived the experience,
>> he probably figured that no one else in the Fellowship stood a chance against
>> it.
>
>See below regarding lack of room for wings. My point about Gandalf's
>position is that it was only a good defensive position against a creature
>that had to pass over the Bridge on foot. Against a flying opponent, it
>just stuck him out there in a precarious and indefensible spot. He would
>have done better to block the doorway behind him while the Company escaped.
Like, Gandalf would be powerless against a flying creature? Why?
>> It kept them retracted -- that's why they came out of the shadow. It was
>> extending its wings.
>
>Your argument reaches a nadir here. Do you honestly expect us to believe
>that wall-spanning wings could be sufficiently folded to allow them to
>pass through the tunnels of Moria?
It's a Balrog. A Maia. A creature of great power. You seem intent on making
it out to be as weak as the nearest orc.
>Or are you going back to the size-changing argument in your heroic effort to
>avoid admitting the thing didn't have wings at all?
I never left the size-changing argument.
>> >And, finally, Gandalf fought the Balrog until it fled up the Endless Stair:
>> >if it was trying to get away, why did it turn at bay at the top of Durin's
>> >Tower instead of just flying back to the Gate?
>>
>> With Gandalf hacking at it all the way, maybe it was tired and wounded.
>
>Sure. Gandalf conveniently hacked off its wings right before they'd be
>of real use. He always was a clever cuss.
Cute, but ineffective. Dodging the issue doesn't strengthen your position, it
only underscores the fact you have no way of supporting your assumptions.
Michael Martinez
In article <Pine.SGI.3.96.980331...@spencer.nott.ac.uk>, The Woolly Rhinocerous <etx...@thmech.nottingham.ac.uk> wrote:
>Wings, perhaps ( of the black shadowy variety )
> There are no unambigous statements of Balrogs flying ( all
>those shown so far didn't imply to me airborne travel ) though lots of
>clear leaping and falling.
They don't leap or fall when they fly over Hithlum. That passage has been
cited several times now (and just in the recent portion of this multi-month
debate).
>As an aside, can someone refer me to the reference that states that ALL
>mair can change form, I just remember Radagast and Sauron being specially
>noted as possessing this ability.
It begins in "Ainulindale" and other references elsewhere show they can take
on forms of their desire, as in "Valaquenta" (take a look at the description
of Olorin, for instance).
Michael Martinez
In article <6fqq4n$i91$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jal...@ct1.nai.net wrote:
>
>None so blind as he who will not see or something like that.
Don't be so quick to judge the blindness of others. You and I have different
news feeds.
>Wishful thinking I'm afraid, Michael.
Nope. I'm still seeing more YES than NO, though not overwhelmingly so.
>I _did_ receive a few NO votes via email (and fewer YES ones), but if you
>just count through the posts it's clear that it's pretty close.
I didn't say it wasn't.
>Don't worry -- I promise not to cheat.
I had no fears on that account.
Michael Martinez
In article <6fqqje$ilb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jal...@ct1.nai.net wrote:
>In article <199803302339...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> cfost...@aol.com (CFoster885) wrote:
>>
>> WINGS_NO
>>
>> But they would help him on corners.
>>
>
>Please, no voting twice. I am keeping track of all email addresses, etc., so
>that no one slips one by me (usually alarmingly easy to do).
If I may make a suggestion here, when news groups are voted on, only the last
vote is counted. So if I send in a YES, then a NO, then an ABSTAIN, then a
YES for a proposed news group, only my last YES vote is counted.
Sirkku Piispanen
On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 13:49:13 +0100, The Woolly Rhinocerous
<etx...@thmech.nottingham.ac.uk> wrote:
>Wings, perhaps ( of the black shadowy variety )
>flying NO.
> There are no unambigous statements of Balrogs flying ( all
>those shown so far didn't imply to me airborne travel ) though lots of
>clear leaping and falling.
>As an aside, can someone refer me to the reference that states that ALL
>mair can change form, I just remember Radagast and Sauron being specially
>noted as possessing this ability.
>
>Matt
>
>It's not wise to upset a snail,
>For they are subtle and slow to do anything.
>
I saw once a picture from Balrog flying over mountain at the daytime.
AND IT DID HAVE BIG WINGS!
It was kinda strange...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sirkku Pispanen
Sirkku.P...@sci.fi
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Robert Massey
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 09:34:53 -0500, William, wrote:
} No wings, but a really huge schwantz.
Wow! What edition are _you_ reading from? <G>
Robert
Michael Martinez
In article <6fr9cf$vmp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jal...@ct1.nai.net wrote:
>Which brings up something I've been wondering about ever since I got my copy
>of HoME and saw how constantly in a state of flux the mythology was; i.e.,
>what is considered "authoritative" in this group? The latest writing of
>Tolkien on a particular subject, or whatever was current as of publication of
>LotR or what exactly?
No consensus has ever been reached, and you will find (I think) that we are
all somewhat inconsistent.
For instance, I use THE SILMARILLION (because it's commonly accessible)
wherever possible, but I frequently point out that it is NOT of J.R.R.
Tolkien's composition, and therefore I do not regard it as a "primary text".
In short, the authoritative texts seem to be whatever we think we can get away
with at the time we cite from them, and only if someone challenges a source
will its authority be called into question.
So I guess that puts those of us with large Tolkien libraries into the
unenviable position of having to be *correct* about our sources.
On the other hand, some of the texts are clearly the ONLY sources for
discussion on certain things. Such as "Narn i Hin Hurin". You'll only find
it in UNFINISHED TALES and THE SILMARILLION. In UT Christopher Tolkien leaves
out the parts he published in THE SILMARILLION. You'll only find "Lay of
Leithian" in THE LAYS OF BELERIAND. You'll only find extensive discussion of
the laws and customs of the Eldar in MORGOTH'S RING, and so forth.
In such cases, the sole texts are the indisputable authorities for those
subjects.
Sparky_Fox
Balrogs = wings
of course they had wings, count my vote in the afermitive.
sparky_fox
Rolf Wagner
>Nope. There are other sentences as well, such as the sentence Tolkien
wrote
>which has the Balrogs flying over Hithlum; such as the sentence Tolkien
wrote
>saying the Balrog could not be seen; etc.
Excuse my ignorance but is this the famous Hithlum passage?
"...Far beneath the ruined halls of Angband, in vaults to which the Valar in
the haste of their assault had not descended, Balrogs lurked still, awaiting
ever the return of their Lord; and now swiftly they arose, and passing over
Hithlum they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire..."
Rolf
Kjartan Almenning
Noldo <no...@altavista.net> wrote in article <35210...@d2o2.telia.com>...
> At least we make better cars in Sweden than you do in Norway! (You'd
better
> not start making any, either! ;-))
Actually we made three cars sometime in the fifties. One of them broke down
after a few hours. :)
(They were called TROLL in case you're interested.)
> P.S. WINGS YES (I just put that there to make this message relevant to
this
> ng. :-))
And I am still going strong on that YES vote of mine. ;)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kjartan Almenning
kja...@vestdata.no.spam
http://www.vestdata.no/~kjaalm/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kjartan Almenning
Sirkku Piispanen <Sirkku.P...@sci.fi> skrev i artikkelen
<35213003...@news.sci.fi>...
> I saw once a picture from Balrog flying over mountain at the daytime.
> AND IT DID HAVE BIG WINGS!
> It was kinda strange...
Ah, the question is: Was the picture signed JRRT?
If not... sorry...
KJ
Michael Martinez
In article <35214...@news1.cityweb.de>, "Rolf Wagner" <rolfw...@cww.de> wrote:
>Excuse my ignorance but is this the famous Hithlum passage?
>
>"...Far beneath the ruined halls of Angband, in vaults to which the Valar in
>the haste of their assault had not descended, Balrogs lurked still, awaiting
>ever the return of their Lord; and now swiftly they arose, and passing over
>Hithlum they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire..."
No. The famous Hithlum passage is to be found in MORGOTH'S RING, and has been
cited several times in this discussion already.
I suggest a quick search for "winged speed" on Dejanews to those who are
curious.
Julian
On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 21:55:20 +0200, "Rolf Wagner" <rolfw...@cww.de>
wrote:
>>Nope. There are other sentences as well, such as the sentence Tolkien
>wrote
>>which has the Balrogs flying over Hithlum; such as the sentence Tolkien
>wrote
>>saying the Balrog could not be seen; etc.
>
>
>Excuse my ignorance but is this the famous Hithlum passage?
>
>"...Far beneath the ruined halls of Angband, in vaults to which the Valar in
>the haste of their assault had not descended, Balrogs lurked still, awaiting
>ever the return of their Lord; and now swiftly they arose, and passing over
>Hithlum they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire..."
>
>Rolf
>
Obviously they had a jet fighter or jumped on the Concorde. Duh.
hee
J
Julian
On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 07:23:30 -0600, jal...@ct1.nai.net wrote:
>In article <199803302339...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> cfost...@aol.com (CFoster885) wrote:
>>
>> WINGS_NO
>>
>> But they would help him on corners.
>>
>
>Please, no voting twice. I am keeping track of all email addresses, etc., so
>that no one slips one by me (usually alarmingly easy to do).
>
>I appreciate that you're on the side of Right, Justice, and the American Way
>(i.e., WINGS NO), but this just makes it tougher.
>
>Thanks :-)
>
>John
FYI John
After re-reading it again and again, I'm sticking with my original
descision of Wings Yes.
I was almost convinced of No until I reread it. Sorry for being
indecisive.
"The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the
>>darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and
>>suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, AND ITS WINGS
>>WERE SPREAD FROM WALL TO WALL; but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering
>>in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: grey and bent,
>>like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm."
The company could still see Gandalf tho the Balrog's wings blocked the
light of the fire behind him. Perhaps from Glamdring.
J
Julian
On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 07:28:39 -0600, jal...@ct1.nai.net wrote:
>In article <35202ca8...@cnews.newsguy.com>,
> ju...@ersatz.com (Julian) wrote:
>>
>
>[big snip]
>
>> >
>> WINGS MAYBE
>>
>
><sigh> Hi Julian. Is this a joke or are you changing your vote? I'm reading
>this whole thread, ya know.
>
>John
>
>
Sorry...WINGS YES
Matt Gable
On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, Michael Martinez wrote:
> You'll need to show the metaphor is there. First, you'll need to show the
> wings were not real. To do that, you'll have to show that Balrogs don't have
> wings. To do that, you'll have to do better than Bill Hicklin at showing the
> Hithlum passage doesn't have winged Balrogs flying over Hithlum.
>
> If you cannot do that, you cannot show these wings are metaphorical.
> Everything so far suggests the wings were there: the chronology of the
> Balrog's development, the style of Tolkien's presentation of the Balrog to the
> reader, and the other significant passage which has the Balrogs flying over
> Hithlum.
You can't just point at the passage and declare you're right and I have
to prove you wrong. You can read the passage either way: it's too
ambiguous for anyone to prove it's a metaphor--but neither can you prove
it's literal. You're just asserting it:
> >Tolkien was speaking metaphorically of the Balrog's shadow.
>
> No. He spoke of the shadow clearly and distinctly in separate terms:
>
> "The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but
> the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge,
> and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings
> were spread from wall to wall...."
>
> Notice that "darkness" and "wings" are in separate sentences. I add nothing
> to this passage, do not try to argue that it's doing anything other than what
> it is doing, and don't discount the presence of any other observations.
That they're in separate sentences proves nothing. What you discount is
the logic of the entire encounter and all other descriptions of Balrogs
except possibly the Hithlum passage.
First of all, there's no reason to exclude the possibility that the
wings are metaphorical. The sentence makes perfect sense if you take
it as a metaphor: "...and its wings [of shadow] were spread from wall to
wall."
Second, Tolkien had just finished using wings as a simile for the shadow:
it's a very small step to drop the "like" and change to a metaphor.
Third, a point that's not needed but is interesting: adding words to
"...its wings were spread from wall to wall" would mess up the line's
iambic rhythm. So we have the means, opportunity, and now the motive for
a metaphor.
There's no conclusive proof here that the Balrog literally had wings. To
settle the question we have to look at more than just these sentences:
> Matt Gable <mga...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
> >
> >Everything suggests the wings were not literal. We have a long list of
> >points where it makes more sense if the Balrog didn't have wings.
>
> I haven't seen them. What I've seen are contrived arguments which don't
> address all the facts, and which often are built on assumptions. The
> assumptions are not justified, i.e., no one has been able to show that they
> are correct.
They are not assumptions, they are deductions. They follow directly from
what Tolkien wrote without adding any more information.
For example: from the fact that the Balrog had a whip I deduce that it
would have had trouble if it had wings on its back. While the Balrog
could theoretically have swung a whip without hitting its enormous bat
wings, it's quite a stretch to believe that. A wingless Balrog is much
more credible here.
There's no assumption in this. I'm simply picturing the situation,
envisioning implications, and testing the idea of wings vs. no wings. In
all cases I can think of, it works either way--but in many cases it's
less awkward if it didn't have wings.
If you decide it did have wings, then you do indeed have to start making
assumptions and making up additional information that Tolkien never wrote
down. Why didn't it fly out of the chasm? The wings were too big.
How'd it get around in the tunnels with huge wings? It can change the
size of its wings. Why didn't it fly off of Durin's Tower to escape
Gandalf? It was wounded. Then how did it burst into new flame and fight
Gandalf for so long? Only its wings were wounded, or something.
If it had no wings, then it makes sense that it swung its whip
effectively, fell down the chasm, lived in a tunnel complex for ages, and
turned at bay at the top of the Tower.
Again, there is *no conclusive evidence the Balrog had wings*. You can't
exclude the possibility that Tolkien was simply using an archaic writing
style when he said the Balrogs passed over Hithlum with winged speed.
If there's no conclusive proof it had wings; if all the mechanics of what
happened and all the description of the Balrog work just as well or
better without wings; then that proves there were no wings by Occam's
Razor.
Tolkien was a careful writer who didn't put unnecessary elements in his
stories. The internal consistency of his fantasy world continues to
astonish me 20 years after my first reading of LotR. Don't underestimate
the man.
Now it's up to you to prove the wings *weren't* metaphorical.
Gable
Brian D. Ewald
I must say that I find this thread very interesting. I personally find the
relevant passages ambiguous (despite the fact that both sides don't seem to
see much ambiguity.) However, I don't see why it would have to be the case
that all Balrogs either had or did not have wings. They weren't an actual
*race*, per se, like Elves or Men, that necessarily had very similar
physical characteristics. They were just a particular group of Maiar that
served Morgoth and had some affinity for fire, as far as I can tell. I
would think that, in general, they, as Maiar, could take whatever form they
pleased, whether that was with wings or without. If Yavanna could appear
as a tree, why not some Balrogs with wings and some without?
Brian D. Ewald
bew...@indiana.edu
Guy
Aaron Pound wrote:
>
> Wings yes, both because it makes him look more demonic and because the
> text states his "Wings stretched wall to wall", which I have chosen to
> take literally. His entire figure is swathed in falme and darkness
> though so they would be hard to make out.
Maybe the Balrog was a building with east and west wings...
;-)
Yug
(sorry, had to)
Michael Martinez
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.980331...@bio3.acpub.duke.edu>, Matt Gable <mga...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, Michael Martinez wrote:
>
>> You'll need to show the metaphor is there. First, you'll need to show the
>> wings were not real. To do that, you'll have to show that Balrogs don't have
>> wings. To do that, you'll have to do better than Bill Hicklin at showing the
>> Hithlum passage doesn't have winged Balrogs flying over Hithlum.
>>
>> If you cannot do that, you cannot show these wings are metaphorical.
>> Everything so far suggests the wings were there: the chronology of the
>> Balrog's development, the style of Tolkien's presentation of the Balrog to
>> the reader, and the other significant passage which has the Balrogs flying over
>> Hithlum.
>
>You can't just point at the passage and declare you're right and I have
>to prove you wrong. You can read the passage either way: it's too
>ambiguous for anyone to prove it's a metaphor--but neither can you prove
>it's literal. You're just asserting it:
Wrong. You have asserted the passage is metaphorical. Now show us HOW it is
metaphorical.
>> Notice that "darkness" and "wings" are in separate sentences. I add nothing
>> to this passage, do not try to argue that it's doing anything other than what
>> it is doing, and don't discount the presence of any other observations.
>
>That they're in separate sentences proves nothing. What you discount is
>the logic of the entire encounter and all other descriptions of Balrogs
>except possibly the Hithlum passage.
So far I've seen no logic. Show us how the passage was metaphorical. What
are the wings supposed to mean to the reader?
>First of all, there's no reason to exclude the possibility that the
>wings are metaphorical. The sentence makes perfect sense if you take
>it as a metaphor: "...and its wings [of shadow] were spread from wall to
>wall."
No, it doesn't make sense. Metaphor is supposed to add something to the
meaning of a passage. Otherwise you just stay with the literal. What is the
metaphor for the reader? The darkness has already been addressed. It's now
revealed that the wing-like shadows are indeed wings.
>Second, Tolkien had just finished using wings as a simile for the shadow:
>it's a very small step to drop the "like" and change to a metaphor.
He'd also just said the Balrog couldn't be seen, but you're not arguing with
him on that point, are you? Why aren't you concerned about the apparent
contradiction there?
More importantly, he spread the description of the Balrog out across several
paragraphs. It becomes much clearer to the Company of the Ring as it
approaches them, so the description becomes more precise as it approaches
them.
>Third, a point that's not needed but is interesting: adding words to
>"...its wings were spread from wall to wall" would mess up the line's
>iambic rhythm. So we have the means, opportunity, and now the motive for
>a metaphor.
Bad point. Tolkien added the wings reference after he'd written the whole
paragraph.
>There's no conclusive proof here that the Balrog literally had wings.
Except for the fact that the author put the wings on the creature, I suppose
you're right. Except for the fact that he has winged Balrogs flying over
Hithlum, you might have a case for ambiguity. Except for the fact that you
keep skipping over pertinent questions, you might have a persuasive argument.
>To settle the question we have to look at more than just these sentences:
>
>
>> Matt Gable <mga...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >Everything suggests the wings were not literal. We have a long list of
>> >points where it makes more sense if the Balrog didn't have wings.
>>
>> I haven't seen them. What I've seen are contrived arguments which don't
>> address all the facts, and which often are built on assumptions. The
>> assumptions are not justified, i.e., no one has been able to show that they
>> are correct.
>
>They are not assumptions, they are deductions. They follow directly from
>what Tolkien wrote without adding any more information.
You're making assumptions. Calling them deductions doesn't take them out of
the realm of assumption.
>For example: from the fact that the Balrog had a whip I deduce that it
>would have had trouble if it had wings on its back.
An incorrect deduction.
>While the Balrog could theoretically have swung a whip without hitting its
>enormous bat wings
[snip]
Do you understand how bat wings are shaped? Bats don't have arms. Their
upper appendages are built into the wings. What would be fingers in primates
provide the framework for a bat's wings.
The Balrog's wings are on its back. I doubt a bat-like creature could wield a
whip or a sword.
>There's no assumption in this. I'm simply picturing the situation,
>envisioning implications, and testing the idea of wings vs. no wings. In
>all cases I can think of, it works either way--but in many cases it's
>less awkward if it didn't have wings.
You're assuming the Balrog has bat-wings for some reason. This makes no sense
to me at all.
>If you decide it did have wings, then you do indeed have to start making
>assumptions and making up additional information that Tolkien never wrote
>down.
Nope.
>Why didn't it fly out of the chasm?...
You're assuming a creature with wings stretching from wall to wall could
somehow fly out of the chasm, aren't you?
The point is that in the story the Balrog doesn't fly out of the chasm. It
could have caught its big toe on a rock. That doesn't matter. It's
irrelevant. But for what it's worth, it seemed rather preoccupied with
Gandalf to me, and based on his account of their eleven-day battle, I don't
see why it should have wanted to fly out of the chasm. What would it have
accomplished toward killing Gandalf?
>...The wings were too big...
The wings are said in the text to stretch from wall to wall. No assumptions
are necessary.
>...How'd it get around in the tunnels with huge wings?...
You mean the wings it kept folded on its back, right?
>...It can change the size of its wings....
The size of its entire body, as the passage indicates.
>...Why didn't it fly off of Durin's Tower to escape Gandalf? It was
>wounded....
Whoa! Gandalf came out on its heels and had been whacking at it with a sword
for up to 8 days. The Battle of the Peak lasted for 2 days. Maybe it was too
wounded to fly, maybe it flew, maybe it didn't fly. You're assuming it
*should* have flown for some reason if it could fly, but that it didn't.
>...Then how did it burst into new flame and fight Gandalf for so long?
>Only its wings were wounded, or something....
These are assumptions for the convenience of your argument -- a straw man.
>...If it had no wings, then it makes sense that it swung its whip
>effectively, fell down the chasm, lived in a tunnel complex for ages, and
>turned at bay at the top of the Tower....
And that the author would decsribe it as a winged creature and have all the
Balrogs fly over Hithlum without wings. We get the picture.
Unfortunately, it doesn't fit with the texts.
>Again, there is *no conclusive evidence the Balrog had wings*....
Except for the author's statement that it had wings, and the other passage
where the Balrogs fly over Hithlum, you might have a point.
>...You can't exclude the possibility that Tolkien was simply using an
>archaic writing style when he said the Balrogs passed over Hithlum with
>winged speed.
I don't see much possibility of that, especially when you've limited him to
using only a batrog for appearance for some unexplained reason.
>If there's no conclusive proof it had wings; if all the mechanics of what
>happened and all the description of the Balrog work just as well or
>better without wings; then that proves there were no wings by Occam's
>Razor.
Occam's Razor doesn't work that way. The simplest solution is to accept the
text literally. Nothing complicates a solution faster than throwing in
assumptions.
>Tolkien was a careful writer who didn't put unnecessary elements in his
>stories. The internal consistency of his fantasy world continues to
>astonish me 20 years after my first reading of LotR. Don't underestimate
>the man.
>
>Now it's up to you to prove the wings *weren't* metaphorical.
We're still waiting for you to prove they WERE metaphorical (or even to show
HOW they could be metaphorical).
CFoster885
[switched the order in which the two quotes appeared to make better sense, no
devious intent]
>You're assuming the Balrog has bat-wings for some reason. This makes no
>sense
>to me at all.
What kind of wings would it have? Please, if you answer one thing out of
this post, answer that.
>Do you understand how bat wings are shaped? Bats don't have arms. Their
>upper appendages are built into the wings. What would be fingers in primates
>
>provide the framework for a bat's wings.
>
>The Balrog's wings are on its back. I doubt a bat-like creature could wield
>a
>whip or a sword.
This is an undisputable fact, and I don't think it had bat wings, but I
think it had "bat wings". The differnce being it quite obviously didn't have
the wings of a bat, but wings like a bat.
I had to draw this comparison, but look at a Gargoyles on castle walls. They
have bat-like wings, but not wings of a bat. If you look at the ones on a
castle wall they have arms, and wings that are formed in a way that looks
similar to bat wings.
Just trying to clear it up.
--
Casey Foster
***
"The secret to happiness is high expectations and your own bag of chips"
-Dogbert
jal...@ct1.nai.net
In article <6fr8h2$o...@camel20.mindspring.com>,
Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote:
>
> In article <6fqrhm$jg3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jal...@ct1.nai.net wrote:
> >In article <6fpi73$4...@camel19.mindspring.com>,
> >> What's illogical is to assume that Tolkien was somehow writing
> >> metaphorically at all. Metaphor is quite rare in his stories.
> >> He wasn't trying to weave a tapestry of references. His style is
> >> straightforward and quite concise.
> >>
hand,
> >you're maintaining that that's literally what he was holding? Metaphor is
> >employed constantly, particularly at dramatic moments.
>
> Prove that. Don't just say "Hogwash". That's a bunch of nonsense.
>
Ok. I didn't spend very long at this (I didn't realize posting to this group
involved homework assignments). I grabbed _Fellowship_ and looked up a few of
the dramatic, "monstery" scenes. It didn't take very long to find metaphors:
Three Is Company (a Black Rider is approaching the hobbits):
"The hoofs drew nearer." (Tolkien means the _sound_ of hoofs drew nearer.)
"The shadow bent to the ground, and then began to crawl towards him"
(It's a Nazgul, not a shadow)
Fog on the Barrow-Downs (the wight is singing):
"The night was railing against the morning of which it was bereaved, and
the cold was cursing the warmth for which it hungered."
Now for some verbal metaphors:
A Knife in the Dark (Frodo has put on the ring and the Nazgul are approaching)
"Their eyes fell on him and pierced him, as they rushed towards him."
and from Moria itself, A Journey in the Dark:
"Great shadows sprang up and fled"
I found these in about 5 minutes. I could easily find more. To use your own
rhetorical technique against you, Michael, how many more citations must Matt
and I come up with before you will concede that "metaphor is quite rare in his
stories" is an untenable position? At the very, VERY least, I think we have
already clearly established the possibility of the second wings sentence being
metaphorical.
> You're just not going to find much metaphor in the story. If you could,
most
> people wouldn't have a clue to what's going on, and there would be endless
> volumes of explanations of the metaphors as there are with Lewis's Narnia
> books. And I don't mean critical analyses -- I mean reference books. I
> happen to own one for Narnia and could easily buy several more. There are
> none for Tolkien, and that is because metaphor is so rarely used by him.
>
I must be missing your point here. Are you trying to establish some
relationship between allegory and metaphor? It seems to me they're pretty
different beasts. Sure, Aslan = Christ in Narnia and Lord knows who else
equals who (who is Puddleglum, btw?), and I can see your needing books to
explain all that stuff. What does that have to do with metaphor? Metaphor is
purely a local phenomenon, used for poetic effect. Tolkien doesn't use wings
_all through_ the LotR when he means shadow. Or am I not understanding what
you're getting at?
> And in this particular case, he refers to the phial as "the star-glass" (or
> has the characters do so) several times in preparation for the statement
"then
> holding the star aloft and the bright sword advanced, Frodo, hobbit of the
> Shire, walked steadily down to meet its eyes".
Um, yes. Right. Absolutely correct. So? Doesn't make it any less a
metaphor. Kind of like preparing the wings metaphor by saying "the shadow
about it reached out like two vast wings," wouldn't you agree?
> And that is a highly
>atypical
> sentence structure for Tolkien, too.
>
This as I'm sure you realize is entirely irrelevant.
> >> I'd like to see the argument for the passage being a metaphor. That
would
> >> be an interesting approach that no one has taken before.
> >>
> >
> >How can you possibly say this? That's the approach that has _always_ been
> >taken.
>
> I've never seen such a discussion. Merely claiming that something is a
> metaphor is not an argument that it is.
>
Now come, Michael. You know that _proving_ something is a metaphor is rather
difficult. How do you prove Frodo wasn't really carrying a star? Um, well,
er, well because there are these "star-glass" references before it, see?
Just like we say, it's a metaphor because the use of wings in a figurative
sense has been established by the preceding simile sentence.
John
Brian Keevan
prov...@otenet.gr wrote:
> In article <199803280401...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> cfost...@aol.com (CFoster885) wrote:
> >
> >WINGS NO
>
> You're not alone out there, Casey. I may be the victim of poor
> translation or
> guilty of sloppy reading, but when i first read the LOTR, I was under
> the
> impression the Balrog caused a shadow *like* wings. I guess I imagined
> the
> Balrog more like a spirit, than an actual creature (which also isn't
> exactly
> correct).
>
> Of course, my translated LOTR version also refers to the B. as
> Barlong...(to laugh or cry? Can't decide...sigh)
>
> Michael was once so nice to point out I shouldn't need to buy the
> original
> english version to take part in this newsgroup, but I may have to do
> so after
> all.
>
> Anyway, I'm not contributing an expert opinion (hah!) to the whole
> lenghty "Do
> B. have wings" discussion, just an impression I had. And boy, do these
> first
> impressions stick around in the mind...
>
> Claudia
>
I agree. Wings NO. I just never got the impression that the balrog
really had wings, but that it had some power over shadow that created
the illusion of vast wings. In this sense, it did have "wings" of
shadow which it created right then to block the light, but these were
not permanent parts of it's (his? her?) body, like giant bat or gargoyle
wings. Again, just the impression I first received reading this passage
years ago, and it still sticks.Brian That Is Called Brian
Sirkku Piispanen
On 31 Mar 1998 21:12:03 GMT, "Kjartan Almenning"
<kja...@vestdata.no.spam> wrote:
No, it wasn't. Sorry.
William
Michael Martinez wrote:
> In article
> <Pine.SOL.3.91.980331...@bio3.acpub.duke.edu>, Matt
> Gable <mga...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
> >On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, Michael Martinez wrote:
> >
> >> You'll need to show the metaphor is there. First, you'll need to
> show the
> >> wings were not real. To do that, you'll have to show that Balrogs
> don't have
> >> wings. To do that, you'll have to do better than Bill Hicklin at
> showing the
> >> Hithlum passage doesn't have winged Balrogs flying over Hithlum.
> >>
Nonsense. The burden of proof is on you, Michael. You are asserting the
affirmative proposition "Balrogs have wings."
> [snip]
>
> And that the author would decsribe it as a winged creature and have
> all the
> Balrogs fly over Hithlum without wings. We get the picture.
>
> Unfortunately, it doesn't fit with the texts.
You can't use your argument to prove your argument. The author uses
words which _you assert_ describe it as a winged creature. He uses a
phrase which _you assert_ means they flew over Hithlum.
--
_________________________________________________
William Cloud Hicklin "And he named him craven,
soli...@gamewood.net and lord of slaves"
_________________________________________________
Darren
WINGS YES (but useless in the confined space of the caverns. Underground
flight is highly improbable, especially for a creature that generally
was twice the size of a man, as the Balrog that fought Glorfindel was
(see "The Fall of Gondolin" in "The Book of Lost Tales"). I assume that
the others were of similar stature).
Noldo
Kjartan Almenning skrev i artikkelen (What! My treacherous newsreader has
learned Norwegian while I was away! Shame on you,
Bill!)<01bd5ce5$858b3180$3760...@hugleik.vestdata.no>...
<snip snipely snip, neighbourino!>
>Actually we made three cars sometime in the fifties. One of them broke down
>after a few hours. :)
>
>(They were called TROLL in case you're interested.)
Why am I not surprised? Well, they might have been called 'Balrog' and have
these cute wings on each side. Or perhaps they made airplanes out of
them...or why not buy Sweden's new fighter-plane JAS 39 Balrog, instead of
those lame F-16s? (OK, I'm gonna stop right now. :-))
>> P.S. WINGS YES (I just put that there to make this message relevant to
>this
>> ng. :-))
>
>And I am still going strong on that YES vote of mine. ;)
Alright! 'Cause suddenly, I feel kinda like us _yes-voters_ are an
endangered species...
And to Pollmaster John I would like to point out that my PS-vote was a real
vote (but I guess you figured that out by yourself).
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Kjartan Almenning
>kja...@vestdata.no.spam
>http://www.vestdata.no/~kjaalm/
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
/ Daniel Andreasson
Elvira
I understand why u had to. I've had this feeling myself. I'm not gonna
tell anyone what I think about Balrog's and there wings... cause I think
the power off the book is that it makes u use ur imagination and I think
that is absolutly wonderfull. Everybody has a diffrent view off Middle
Earth and the creatures and caracters... and I love that about LOTR and
Silmarillion and all the other books. So people have peace with however
u view ur Balrog's, etc... cause that diffrence is what makes each off u
people special.
--
***********************************************************************
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are
tiny matters compared to what lies within us"
Namaste'
Elvira
***********************************************************************
Matt Gable
On Wed, 1 Apr 1998, William wrote:
> Michael Martinez wrote:
>
> > And that the author would decsribe it as a winged creature and have
> > all the
> > Balrogs fly over Hithlum without wings. We get the picture.
> >
> > Unfortunately, it doesn't fit with the texts.
>
> You can't use your argument to prove your argument. The author uses
> words which _you assert_ describe it as a winged creature. He uses a
> phrase which _you assert_ means they flew over Hithlum.
I think it's clear by now that one can take the words of the two passages
either way. So, if the words are ambiguous, which makes more sense on
other grounds, WINGS YES or WINGS NO?
WINGS NO at least fits in with the rest of the text. Leaving aside the
two disputed passages, Balrogs could have done everything they did in
Tolkien's stories perfectly well without wings.
For the WINGS YES position, first of all, if the Hithlum passage is used
as evidence for wings, then you have to say the wings were functional and
Balrogs could fly, outdoors at least.
Then you start having to make excuses:
Why did Balrogs fall off things? (mountain peaks, towers, broken bridges)
Why, if Gandalf was trying to prevent the Balrog from passing him, did he
stand out in the middle of the bridge where a flying enemy could
potentially go right around him?
If the Balrog was able to get around in the tunnels of Moria, how could
its size stop it from flying in the Second Deep?
Why would a winged Balrog pick such an awkward weapon as a whip? Why
not a barbed hook, or something else that's less likely to get tangled in
its wings?
If Balrogs could fly, why were there no battles between Balrogs and
Eagles? Eagles fought the other major flying enemies, dragons in the War
of Wrath, and Nazgul at the Last Battle--but no flying Balrogs.
(Others? Bill, John, Ron, Casey?)
WINGS YES seems to lead inevitably to a lot of awkward and unnecessary
theorizing about why the Balrog couldn't do this or that with its wings.
WINGS NO fits in well with the action, so I think it's more likely to
be correct.
Now, <ahem>, Mr. Martinez, perhaps you will admit that 1) Tolkien used
metaphors, a lot; 2) you cannot prove the Moria and Hithlum passages were
literal; 3) you have presented circular arguments that the Balrog had
wings; 4) it's contradictory to claim both that the Balrog could change
size and that it had wings too big to use; and 5) other than the two
disputed passages, there's no place in all Tolkien's works where there's
any suggestion that a Balrog used its wings.
Gable
Matt Gable
On Wed, 1 Apr 1998 jal...@ct1.nai.net wrote:
>
> In article <6fr8h2$o...@camel20.mindspring.com>,
> Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote:
> >
> > Prove that. Don't just say "Hogwash". That's a bunch of nonsense.
> >
>
> Ok. I didn't spend very long at this (I didn't realize posting to this group
> involved homework assignments). I grabbed _Fellowship_ and looked up a few of
> the dramatic, "monstery" scenes. It didn't take very long to find metaphors:
[snipped metaphors]
> I found these in about 5 minutes. I could easily find more. To use your own
> rhetorical technique against you, Michael, how many more citations must Matt
> and I come up with before you will concede that "metaphor is quite rare in his
> stories" is an untenable position? At the very, VERY least, I think we have
> already clearly established the possibility of the second wings sentence being
> metaphorical.
Hmm. John has proven that Tolkien uses metaphors all the time (and,
helpfully, described the difference between metaphor and allegory).
Bill has pointed out a circularity in the argument that the Balrog had
wings because Tolkien said it had wings, when what we're arguing over is
*whether* Tolkien said it had wings.
An inconsistency in the "big wings" argument: if the Balrog's wings were
too big for it to fly in the Second Deep, how'd it get around in the
tunnels of Moria? And if it could change size to get around the tunnels,
then why couldn't it have made itself small enough to fly in the
Second Deep?
We seem to have settled on the locations of everyone during the duel.
I'd point out that Gandalf was trying to keep the Balrog from passing
him: he said three times, "You cannot pass!" If there was any chance of
it flying, he would have had to position himself to block it from flying
around him--which would not be the middle of the Bridge.
> Now come, Michael. You know that _proving_ something is a metaphor is rather
> difficult. How do you prove Frodo wasn't really carrying a star? Um, well,
> er, well because there are these "star-glass" references before it, see?
>
> Just like we say, it's a metaphor because the use of wings in a figurative
> sense has been established by the preceding simile sentence.
It's not even necessary to prove Tolkien was speaking metaphorically.
You only have to show it's a possibility that can't be excluded based on
the wording--which you've just done.
Gable
The Archchancellor
One, two, three... WINGS NO!
The Archchancellor
--
...... mail => archchancellor (AT) biosys.net
::::/| http://www.biosys.net/archchancellor/
:::/_|
::/ | "There's only one way of life, and that's your own."
:/ | -One Way, The Levellers
Yug
Elvira wrote:
> > Maybe the Balrog was a building with east and west wings...
> > ;-)
> > Yug
> > (sorry, had to)
>
> I understand why u had to. I've had this feeling myself. I'm not gonna
> tell anyone what I think about Balrog's and there wings... cause I think
> the power off the book is that it makes u use ur imagination and I think
> that is absolutly wonderfull. Everybody has a diffrent view off Middle
> Earth and the creatures and caracters... and I love that about LOTR and
> Silmarillion and all the other books. So people have peace with however
> u view ur Balrog's, etc... cause that diffrence is what makes each off u
> people special.
Wheeee, someone understood my point! I know I'm new to this group but
one thing I have noticed in all my time on BBS's and things is that
people just have this urge to be RIGHT. I'm right, you're wrong and
nyanyanyaaaaa. If we accepted that people can have opposing views and
still be right then maybe (just maybe) you may learn something. E.F.
Schumacher had a really good quote to that effect in "Small is
Beautiful", but I am at uni right now and don't have the book at hand to
right it. Of course, if we just sat down to talk, then things may be
quieter but more may end up being said. Am I right or left or have I
just turned myself into a small incendiary device?
Peace, love and tri-nitro-toluine (sp?)
Yug
ps, I don't mind getting heated over issues, but when there can be no
clear winner because it all comes down to frame of mind and all, then
there are better things to spend energy on.
the Piper
Can I change my vote regarding the Balrog wings poll?
I voted WINGS YES, but recent posts have swayed me to the opposite
side. WINGS NO.
P
Ron Ploeg
Matt Gable wrote:
(SNIPS)
>
> If Balrogs could fly, why were there no battles between Balrogs and
> Eagles? Eagles fought the other major flying enemies, dragons in the War
> of Wrath, and Nazgul at the Last Battle--but no flying Balrogs.
>
> (Others? Bill, John, Ron, Casey?)
>
> WINGS YES seems to lead inevitably to a lot of awkward and unnecessary
> theorizing about why the Balrog couldn't do this or that with its wings.
> WINGS NO fits in well with the action, so I think it's more likely to
> be correct.
>
> Now, <ahem>, Mr. Martinez, perhaps you will admit that 1) Tolkien used
> metaphors, a lot; 2) you cannot prove the Moria and Hithlum passages were
> literal; 3) you have presented circular arguments that the Balrog had
> wings; 4) it's contradictory to claim both that the Balrog could change
> size and that it had wings too big to use; and 5) other than the two
> disputed passages, there's no place in all Tolkien's works where there's
> any suggestion that a Balrog used its wings.
>
> Gable
Going for the kill, Matt? :)
I do not consider it necessary, let alone appropriate. In my opinion you
made some very perspicuous contributions on the Balrog discussion, I
think you made your point(s), and I suppose you and I are, in regard to
this topic, thinking along the same lines. But there are loads of people
out there who are disagreeing with our point of view; they picture the
Balrog with wings and have their (personal) reasons for doing so, and
their point of view is as valid as ours.
When I joined this newsgroup some time ago there was a thread (on a
topic I will NOT mention here) which was regarded as the most lengthy
discussion on this newsgroup over the years. In my innocence I popped
the question: "How about: do Balrogs have wings?". And off it went (for
the xxx th time apparently). It has been a favourite topic with the
Dutch Tolkiensociety for years, and probably will be for many years to
come. Why? Because the outcome will never be conclusive. And that *can*
be fun!
In an email to one of the contributors of the Balrog-thread I expressed
my doubts on whether someone would be actually turned around on his/her
thoughts on what a Balrog lookes like. And to my surprise I found a
posting today in which that is the case! I suppose your contributions
had (at least something) to do with that change of mind. But as far as I
am concerned all important arguments passed in revue, and I am awaiting
the polls :) (not that it will make any difference on my view- I just
sympathize with the idea of making it into poll :)
Ron Ploeg
William
Darren wrote:
If you are taking the position that the Balrogs Tolkien conceived in
1916-17 were unchanged by the time of Moria (c. 1940), then you must
concede that Balrogs could _not_ fly. The Balrogs in the BLT "Fall of
Gondolin" manifestly could not fly: they needed the dragons' help to get
past the walls.