BEST evidence of wings on Balrogs
Wraith
Nazgul.... Gimli is instatntly rmeinded of the Balrog, but Frodo
reassures him: "It was not a Balrog. It was something colder."
Wouldn't it be silly for Frodo to point this out to the Company if he
believed they couldn't fly?? If the Balrog DIDN'T have wings, then it
sure fooled the Fellowship!
Robert S. Coren
So Nazgul have wings? (Hint: the wings used by the "winged Nazgul" are
not their own.)
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"Our attitude's queer and quaint." -- W. S. Gilbert, _The Mikado_
Jeff Haas
>In the chaper 'The Great River', after Legolas shoots down the winged
>Nazgul.... Gimli is instatntly rmeinded of the Balrog, but Frodo
>reassures him: "It was not a Balrog. It was something colder."
>
> Wouldn't it be silly for Frodo to point this out to the Company if he
>believed they couldn't fly?? If the Balrog DIDN'T have wings, then it
>sure fooled the Fellowship!
Just when you though it was safe....
--
Jeff
J.R.R. Tolkien FAQE is currently under construction, but submissions are
still welcome; please see: http://www.cse.unl.edu/~haas/faqe_info.html
CFoster885
>In the chaper 'The Great River', after Legolas shoots down the winged
>Nazgul.... Gimli is instatntly rmeinded of the Balrog, but Frodo
>reassures him: "It was not a Balrog. It was something colder."
>
> Wouldn't it be silly for Frodo to point this out to the Company if he
>believed they couldn't fly?? If the Balrog DIDN'T have wings, then it
>sure fooled the Fellowship!
That is an extremely good (and fresh) point, but I'm still need to think about
it some more before I change my stance.
--
Casey Foster
Michael Martinez
>So Nazgul have wings? (Hint: the wings used by the "winged Nazgul" are
>not their own.)
Someone brings up a really new approach, and you nit-pick about the phrase
"winged Nazgul"? Come on! Even Tolkien used the phrase loosely!
--
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
//\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm]
// \\ENITE.org...............................................
Marmaduke
Marmaduke
Wraith skrev i meldingen <366C2C...@aloha.net>...
Ryan Paddy
>In the chaper 'The Great River', after Legolas shoots down the winged
>Nazgul.... Gimli is instatntly rmeinded of the Balrog, but Frodo
>reassures him: "It was not a Balrog. It was something colder."
>
> Wouldn't it be silly for Frodo to point this out to the Company if he
>believed they couldn't fly?? If the Balrog DIDN'T have wings, then it
>sure fooled the Fellowship!
Good point. I'm in the mood for some typing, so I think I'll type up the
relevant text for discussion:
Suddenly the great bow of LÓrien sang. Shrill went the arrow
from the elven-string. Frodo looked up. Almost above him the
winged shape swerved. There was a tumult of many voices far
away, cursing and wailing in the darkness, and then silence.
Neither shaft nor cry came again from the east that night.
After a while Aragorn led the boats back upstream. They felt
their way along the water's edge for some distance, until they
found a small shallow bay. A few low trees grew there close to
the water, and behind them rose a steep rocky bank. Here the
Company decided to stay and await the dawn : it was useless to
attempt to move further by night. They made no camp and lit no
fire, but lay huddled in the boats, moored close together.
'Praised be the bow of Galadriel, and the hand and eye of
Legolas!' said Gimli, as he munched a wafer of lembas. 'That was
a mighty shot in the dark, my friend!'
'But who can say what it hit?' said Legolas.
'I cannot,' said Gimli. 'But I am glad that the shadow came
no nearer. I liked it not at all. Too much it reminded me of the
shadow in Moria - the shadow of the Balrog,' he ended in a
whisper.
'It was not a Balrog,' said Frodo, still shivering with the
chill that had coem upon him. 'It was something colder. It think
it was-' Then he paused and fell silent.
'What do you think?' asked Boromir eagerly, leaning from his
boat, as if trying to catch a glimpse of Frodo's face.
'I think - No, I will not say,' answered Frodo. 'Whatever it
was, its fall has dismayed our enemies.'
Fundamentally, I that this helps the case that the Balrog of Moria was
winged. But here's a few points, some of which may be nitpicky:
* Gimli didn't see the big winged shape and 'instantly' think of the Balrog.
In fact, it was after they waited 'a while' then led the boats up the river
'for some distance' that he came out with this. Gimli might have only been
reminded of the shadowyness/fearfulness of the Balrog, not wings.
* You're right that it seems strange of Frodo to say 'it was not a Balrog',
if the other Balrog was obviously incapable of flight. But not impossible.
There are other means of flying than having wings of one's own. The whole
Fellowship is aware after the council at Rivendale that Gandalf has made use
of an Eagle for flight. They may be able to imagine a Balrog doing likewise.
* The section serves a number of character advancing purposes. It displays
Frodo's increasing estimation in the eyes of the Fellowship as someone of
wisdom and insight, and Boromir's shiftiness. It also reminds us of an
exciting encounter (always a good thing), and serves to bind the imagined
world together more believably by comparing two of the nastiest beasties the
group has encountered. There is really no other entity known by the group
that anyone could mistake the 'winged' Nazgul for, in its emanation of fear.
Mistaking it for something sets up the chance for Frodo to correct the
mistake (and remind us of the Nazgul), and for Boromir to act suspicious. I
think there are sufficient plot and character reasons to have this verbal
exchange that the matter of whether the party considered the Balrog capable
of flight might have been overlooked by the author, in order to get the
exchange in. Of course, this is not a rationale that works within the story,
but more of a meta-analysis to try to get at the issue of whether or not
Tolkien conceived of the Moria Balrog as having wings.
In summary: this passage helps the case of the pro-wingers, but I don't
think its final.
Righto!
Ryan
['The agony of breaking through personal limitations is the agony of
spiritual growth' ~ Joseph Campbell]
Eddie Hallahan
balrog debate. I say again well done.
Personally however I think it was not the winged part that Gimli referred
to as much as the feeling of dread.
just my tuppence worth
EddieH
In article <366C2C...@aloha.net>, Wraith <pe...@aloha.net> wrote:
John Alcock
>Why didn't I think of that?! A very good point.
>
>Marmaduke
>
>Wraith skrev i meldingen <366C2C...@aloha.net>...
>>In the chaper 'The Great River', after Legolas shoots down the winged
>>Nazgul.... Gimli is instatntly rmeinded of the Balrog, but Frodo
>>reassures him: "It was not a Balrog. It was something colder."
>>
>> Wouldn't it be silly for Frodo to point this out to the Company if he
>>believed they couldn't fly?? If the Balrog DIDN'T have wings, then it
>>sure fooled the Fellowship!
>
It is a fresh approach, but the argument has a flaw.
So far as Frodo knows at this point, a Nazgul can't fly either. He's only seen
them on horses. If it doesn't bother him to speculate that it IS a (wingless)
Nazgul, why would it bother him to speculate that it ISN'T a (wingless) Balrog?
I don't think either Gimli or Frodo considered themselves authorities on the
various devices or mounts of Mordor. In the passage cited, they seem in my
opinion to be more concerned with what the thing is and not how it got there.
Note, incidentally, what Gimli says:
"Too much it reminded me of the shadow in Moria -- the shadow of the Balrog"
So for Gimli at least, shadow is still an appropriate word to use in reference
to the Balrog.
Nice try, though.
John
--
John Alcock
work: jal...@NOSPAMwatson.ibm.com
home: jal...@NOSPAMct1.nai.net
--
Gandalf the Grey
: In article <366C2C...@aloha.net>, Wraith <pe...@aloha.net> wrote:
: >In the chaper 'The Great River', after Legolas shoots down the winged
: >reassures him: "It was not a Balrog. It was something colder."
: >
: > Wouldn't it be silly for Frodo to point this out to the Company if he
: >believed they couldn't fly?? If the Balrog DIDN'T have wings, then it
: >sure fooled the Fellowship!
: So Nazgul have wings? (Hint: the wings used by the "winged Nazgul" are
: not their own.)
Umm... I think you're missing the point here - what he's saying is that
Gimli related the nazgul on their _flying_ horses to Balrogs
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Place all scrap paper in the bins provided
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jeff Haas
jal...@NOSPAMct1.nai.net wrote:
>Note, incidentally, what Gimli says:
>"Too much it reminded me of the shadow in Moria -- the shadow of the Balrog"
Ah, it reminded him of the wings? ;-)
Graham Lockwood
>"Marmaduke" <marm...@cheerful.com> wrote:
>
>>Why didn't I think of that?! A very good point.
>>
>>Marmaduke
>>
>>Wraith skrev i meldingen <366C2C...@aloha.net>...
>>>Nazgul.... Gimli is instatntly rmeinded of the Balrog, but Frodo
>>>reassures him: "It was not a Balrog. It was something colder."
>>>
>>> Wouldn't it be silly for Frodo to point this out to the Company if he
>>>believed they couldn't fly?? If the Balrog DIDN'T have wings, then it
>>>sure fooled the Fellowship!
>>
>
>
>So far as Frodo knows at this point, a Nazgul can't fly either. He's only
seen
>them on horses. If it doesn't bother him to speculate that it IS a
(wingless)
>Nazgul, why would it bother him to speculate that it ISN'T a (wingless)
Balrog?
I think the reason Frodo knew what it was is because he has the Ring and he
had been stabbed by the Morgul knife. He had a special affinity to the
Nazgul.
>I don't think either Gimli or Frodo considered themselves authorities on
the
>various devices or mounts of Mordor. In the passage cited, they seem in my
>opinion to be more concerned with what the thing is and not how it got
there.
>
>Note, incidentally, what Gimli says:
>"Too much it reminded me of the shadow in Moria -- the shadow of the
Balrog"
>
>So for Gimli at least, shadow is still an appropriate word to use in
reference
>to the Balrog.
Perhaps that's because the Balrog *was* shadow incarnate.
||// // Lord Graham of the Locked Wood, || //
|// // ||//
(/ // Royal Detective at Need |//
||// Torog Hunter Extraordinaire (/)
|// and //|
(/ Warden of the Keys //||
|| of the TEUNC Listserver // ||
John Alcock
<gsl...@garnetdotacnsdotfsu.edu> wrote:
>John Alcock wrote in message <366d0ad8...@news3.newscene.com>...
>>
>>It is a fresh approach, but the argument has a flaw.
>>
>>So far as Frodo knows at this point, a Nazgul can't fly either. He's only
>seen
>>them on horses. If it doesn't bother him to speculate that it IS a
>(wingless)
>>Nazgul, why would it bother him to speculate that it ISN'T a (wingless)
>Balrog?
>
>
>I think the reason Frodo knew what it was is because he has the Ring and he
>had been stabbed by the Morgul knife. He had a special affinity to the
>Nazgul.
>
I agree with this entirely. But I don't think Frodo at this point has
a clue how the Nazgul got up there. As far as he knows, a Balrog
could have gotten up there the same way, whatever it was.
[snip]
>>
>>Note, incidentally, what Gimli says:
>>"Too much it reminded me of the shadow in Moria -- the shadow of the
>Balrog"
>>
>>So for Gimli at least, shadow is still an appropriate word to use in
>reference
>>to the Balrog.
>
>
>Perhaps that's because the Balrog *was* shadow incarnate.
>
Perhaps.
John
--
Work: jal...@NOSPAMwatson.ibm.com
Home: jal...@NOSPAMct1.nai.net
David Salo
> In the chaper 'The Great River', after Legolas shoots down the winged
> Nazgul.... Gimli is instatntly rmeinded of the Balrog, but Frodo
> reassures him: "It was not a Balrog. It was something colder."
>
> Wouldn't it be silly for Frodo to point this out to the Company if he
> believed they couldn't fly?? If the Balrog DIDN'T have wings, then it
> sure fooled the Fellowship!
Let's try to follow the logic here:
------------
(FS = Flying Shadow; = [+characteristic] means "has characteristic"; =
[-characteristic] means "lacks characteristic")
One does not deny statements that are obviously untrue
Frodo denies the statement "Balrog = FS"
THEREFORE "Balrog = FS" is not obviously untrue
FS = [+wing]
If X = [-wing] AND X = FS, THEN X = [-wing] AND X = [+wing], which is
contradictory, so
THEREFORE the statement "X = [-wing] AND X = FS" is obviously untrue
And so also "Balrog = [-wing] AND Balrog = FS" is also obviously untrue
In an obviously untrue "A AND B" statement, either A, B, or both must
be obviously untrue.
"Balrog = FS" is not obviously untrue
THEREFORE "Balrog = [-wing]" is obviously untrue
THEREFORE "Balrog = [+wing]" is true
---------
All if which would be fine, if we could grant the first premise "One does
not deny statements that are obviously untrue." But of course people do
this all the time. One might as well argue that:
---------
FS = [-flaming whip]
If X = [+flaming whip] AND X = FS, THEN X = [+flaming whip] AND X =
[-flaming whip], which is contradictory, so
THEREFORE the statement "X = [+flaming whip] AND X = FS" is obviously untrue
And so also "Balrog = [+flaming whip] AND Balrog = FS" is also
obviously untrue
In an obviously untrue "A AND B" statement, either A, B, or both must
be obviously untrue.
"Balrog = FS" is not obviously untrue
Ergo "Balrog = [+flaming whip]" is obviously untrue
Ergo "Balrog = [-flaming whip]" is true
In short, the implication is that if I deny that A = B, I cannot do so
unless I grant that A has all the obvious characteristics of B! This is
inadmissible. The argument does not stand.
David Salo
Robert S. Coren
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>In article <leYa2.198$l24.9...@lwnws01.ne.mediaone.net>, co...@ursolaris.spdcc.com (Robert S. Coren) wrote:
>>not their own.)
>
>"winged Nazgul"? Come on! Even Tolkien used the phrase loosely!
My point is that the fact that it was considered possible that a
Balrog might be airborne above the company no more demonstrates that
Balrogs had wings than the fact that it was actually a Nazgul
demonstrates that Nazgul had wings.
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"Ideas aren't responsible for the people who believe in them."
--Melinda Shore
Robert S. Coren
>: >In the chaper 'The Great River', after Legolas shoots down the winged
>: >Nazgul.... Gimli is instatntly rmeinded of the Balrog, but Frodo
>: >reassures him: "It was not a Balrog. It was something colder."
>: >
>: > Wouldn't it be silly for Frodo to point this out to the Company if he
>: >believed they couldn't fly?? If the Balrog DIDN'T have wings, then it
>: >sure fooled the Fellowship!
>
>
>: not their own.)
>Umm... I think you're missing the point here - what he's saying is that
>Gimli related the nazgul on their _flying_ horses to Balrogs
No, that's *exactly* my point. See my response to MM.
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"I often postulate with high structural coherence."
--Jeffrey William Sandris
softrat
>In article <366C2C...@aloha.net>, Wraith <pe...@aloha.net> wrote:
>
>> In the chaper 'The Great River', after Legolas shoots down the winged
>> Nazgul.... Gimli is instatntly rmeinded of the Balrog, but Frodo
>> reassures him: "It was not a Balrog. It was something colder."
>>
>> Wouldn't it be silly for Frodo to point this out to the Company if he
>> believed they couldn't fly?? If the Balrog DIDN'T have wings, then it
>> sure fooled the Fellowship!
>
That was pretty impressive! Now if I really cared about the whole
debate, I'd read it! :-)
(I still think that the answer is D with a slight admixture of R.)
:-)
the softrat, furry little bugger to HRM Rabbyt,
Elf-Queen, (etc.), Hobbirodent, and Proud Pumpkin
John Savard
>>In the chaper 'The Great River', after Legolas shoots down the winged
>>Nazgul.... Gimli is instatntly rmeinded of the Balrog, but Frodo
>>reassures him: "It was not a Balrog. It was something colder."
>> Wouldn't it be silly for Frodo to point this out to the Company if he
>>believed they couldn't fly?? If the Balrog DIDN'T have wings, then it
>>sure fooled the Fellowship!
>So Nazgul have wings? (Hint: the wings used by the "winged Nazgul" are
>not their own.)
No, but could Balrogs fly without wings? The point, which isn't
diminished by your note, is that the Fellowship expected the Balrog to
be able to fly. Likely because they saw wings on it: it confirms other
indications which were less unambiguous.
John Savard
http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
A. Johnston
>
> That was pretty impressive! Now if I really cared about the whole
> debate, I'd read it! :-)
>
Keep it up!
Andy
Michael Martinez
>In article <366C2C...@aloha.net>, Wraith <pe...@aloha.net> wrote:
>
>> In the chaper 'The Great River', after Legolas shoots down the winged
>> Nazgul.... Gimli is instatntly rmeinded of the Balrog, but Frodo
>> reassures him: "It was not a Balrog. It was something colder."
>>
>> Wouldn't it be silly for Frodo to point this out to the Company if he
>> believed they couldn't fly?? If the Balrog DIDN'T have wings, then it
>> sure fooled the Fellowship!
>
Yes, indeed, lets....
>------------
>(FS = Flying Shadow; = [+characteristic] means "has characteristic"; =
>[-characteristic] means "lacks characteristic")
>
> One does not deny statements that are obviously untrue
However, one does point out alternatives -- at least, that is what Frodo
does.
> Frodo denies the statement "Balrog = FS"
And he points out an alternative. Hence, "Balrog = FS" implies that a
Balrog has the characteristic of (winged) flying because neither Frodo nor
anyone else says, "Oh, no -- it had wings and was flying -- therefore it
couldn't be a Balrog." Instead, Frodo says, "it was something colder".
On the other hand, "Balrog <> FS" doesn't imply that the Balrog cannot fly
or has no wings because it's not supported by any such assertions. It is,
rather, supported by the assertion that whatever it was "was something
colder [than a Balrog]".
All the rest was trivial folderol. All that can logically be argued from
the passage in question is that the Balrog differs from the flying shadow
in one immediately apparent respect: the flying shadow is something colder
than a Balrog (or the darkness surrounding a Balrog).
So, the passage implies that none of the characters doubted the possibility
that a flying Balrog might have pursued them. No one challenged the
assumption in Gimli's comparison that a Balrog COULD fly toward them.
Michael Martinez
>In article <74ife2$mnr$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>,
>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>>In article <leYa2.198$l24.9...@lwnws01.ne.mediaone.net>,
> co...@ursolaris.spdcc.com (Robert S. Coren) wrote:
>>>not their own.)
>>
>>"winged Nazgul"? Come on! Even Tolkien used the phrase loosely!
>
>My point is that the fact that it was considered possible that a
>Balrog might be airborne above the company no more demonstrates that
>Balrogs had wings than the fact that it was actually a Nazgul
>demonstrates that Nazgul had wings.
Actually, it does. The Balrog's wings have already been seen by the
characters -- they have an opportunity at this point in the story to say,
"But Balrogs don't have wings and can't fly". They don't. Hence, the
image of the Balrog's wings is reinforced.
Only someone who wishes to deny the Balrog's wingedness would argue the
passage doesn't add yet more weight to the literalist view. Nazgul have
never been shown with wings, are not said to have had the power to fly, and
until this point there is no reason to expect a flying Nazgul. If,
however, the Balrog has survived the encounter with Gandalf, or there is
another, the expectation that it might be flying along a river path is not
unreasonable. Hence, the characters accept the assumption that it might
without reservation, and Frodo only dismisses the possibility that it might
be a Balrog on completely unrelated grounds: "it was something colder [than
a Balrog or Balrog's shadow]".
Only Frodo has the insight necessary to determine that it wasn't a Balrog.
CFoster885
> Let's try to follow the logic here:
Flying shadow does not always = wings.
--
Casey Foster
O'Neill Quigley
Shorely shome mishtake......*hic*
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote in article
<74ife2$mnr$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>...
> In article <leYa2.198$l24.9...@lwnws01.ne.mediaone.net>,
co...@ursolaris.spdcc.com (Robert S. Coren) wrote:
> >So Nazgul have wings? (Hint: the wings used by the "winged Nazgul" are
> >not their own.)
>
> Someone brings up a really new approach, and you nit-pick about the
phrase
> "winged Nazgul"? Come on! Even Tolkien used the phrase loosely!
>
>
O'Neill Quigley
could be almost anything......
flying pig, mebbee....
*oink*
Wraith <pe...@aloha.net> wrote in article <366C2C...@aloha.net>...
O'Neill Quigley
How nice to see you here Eddie. Enjoy yourself if it's your first time. We
say that to all the boys. I haven't seen you post here before.
Have I? Apart as a cross post from alt.flame?
Well come on in. Sit down.
This thread looks set to start up the whole Balrogs Wings debate afresh.
You might see some "real" cascades, not ones composed mostly of the one
line, bloated sig, bot-deployed rubbish you have had to suffer in
alt.flame.
Mind you you'll see those too; except for the bots - most people here
deploy their own rubbish ;-)
You'll also see 200 - 300 liners commentaries building up and sometimes an
original thought in the middle of them which will start a singe - as I call
them here or a separate thread.
Posts are at around 2,000 on my News Reader which is about critical mass
for a good cascade to begin. Better than avalanch skiing in the Swiss Alps
- after all, you only get to do that once usually.
Have fun. Watch the rhythm.
Michael O'Neill.
Better put in a comment on your post also.
Have to agree. Dread, not wings was the common denominator here.
Eddie Hallahan <eddy.h...@strath.ac.uk> wrote in article
<eddy.hallahan-0...@tupaiidae.avms.strath.ac.uk>...
> Wraith, I am in awe. Well done, a fresh point in the winged/non winged
> balrog debate. I say again well done.
>
> Personally however I think it was not the winged part that Gimli referred
> to as much as the feeling of dread.
>
> just my tuppence worth
>
> EddieH
>
> In article <366C2C...@aloha.net>, Wraith <pe...@aloha.net> wrote:
>
Ron Ploeg
>
> Something colder than a Valaraukar, a scouge of fire......
>
> could be almost anything......
>
> flying pig, mebbee....
>
> *oink*
>
Saying this, the nine spurred their farting porkers and sped away in a
great cloud of dust and dung.'
Bored of The Rings...
Ron Ploeg :)
Gary E. Masters
should have known. I am convinced that they had wings.
A most excellent piece of work.
Gary Masters
Wraith wrote:
> In the chaper 'The Great River', after Legolas shoots down the winged
> Nazgul.... Gimli is instatntly rmeinded of the Balrog, but Frodo
> reassures him: "It was not a Balrog. It was something colder."
>
> Wouldn't it be silly for Frodo to point this out to the Company if he
> believed they couldn't fly?? If the Balrog DIDN'T have wings, then it
> sure fooled the Fellowship!
--
Gary E. Masters
Automated Services Librarian
Texas A&M International University
(210) 326-2137 (voice)
(210) 326-2120 (fax)
William C. Hicklin
Michael Martinez wrote:
>
>
> Actually, it does. The Balrog's wings have already been seen by the
> characters -- they have an opportunity at this point in the story to say,
> "But Balrogs don't have wings and can't fly". They don't. Hence, the
> image of the Balrog's wings is reinforced.
>
> Only someone who wishes to deny the Balrog's wingedness would argue the
> passage doesn't add yet more weight to the literalist view. Nazgul have
> never been shown with wings, are not said to have had the power to fly, and
> until this point there is no reason to expect a flying Nazgul. If,
> however, the Balrog has survived the encounter with Gandalf, or there is
> another, the expectation that it might be flying along a river path is not
> unreasonable. Hence, the characters accept the assumption that it might
> without reservation, and Frodo only dismisses the possibility that it might
> be a Balrog on completely unrelated grounds: "it was something colder [than
> a Balrog or Balrog's shadow]".
>
> Only Frodo has the insight necessary to determine that it wasn't a Balrog.
>
"Hence, the characters accept the assumption that it might without reservation"is placing a rather stronger
interpretation on the passage than the text deserves. What we have is Legolas (who knows a Balrog when he
sees one) asking "But who can say what it hit?" to which Gimli (who knows Durin's Bane when he sees it)
replies "I cannot......too much [the shadow] reminded me of the shadow in Moria -- the shadow of the
Balrog." It *reminded* him of the Balrog (or of its shadow), but he "cannot" say what it was. Boromir is
plainly dying to hear Frodo's guess, and therefore presumably has no conclusion of his own. Aragorn says
nuttin'.
"Nazgul have
never been shown with wings, are not said to have had the power to fly, and
until this point there is no reason to expect a flying Nazgul. " Right. Absolutely. No reason in the world
to expect a Black Rider. But this is not an either-or question. They see a Something. It flies. It's Very
Scary. They don't have a clue what it is. They just know it's Bad: (a) because the Orcs were rooting for it,
and (b) because large dark shadowy things, after the Balrog experience, are not to be invited to tea. Nobody
here suggests that it *is* a Balrog; just that it is *reminiscent* of a Balrog, and therefore unlikely to
wish them well.
--
W. C. Hicklin::soli...@gamewood.net
"Imagine the disincentive to software development if after months of work
another company could come along and copy your work and market it under its
own name...without legal restraints to such copying, companies like Apple could
not afford to advance the state of the art." -- Microsoft's Bill Gates, 1984
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Actually, it does. The Balrog's wings have already been seen by the
>> characters -- they have an opportunity at this point in the story to say,
>> "But Balrogs don't have wings and can't fly". They don't. Hence, the
>> image of the Balrog's wings is reinforced.
>>
>> Only someone who wishes to deny the Balrog's wingedness would argue the
>> passage doesn't add yet more weight to the literalist view. Nazgul have
>> never been shown with wings, are not said to have had the power to fly, and
>> until this point there is no reason to expect a flying Nazgul. If,
>> however, the Balrog has survived the encounter with Gandalf, or there is
>> another, the expectation that it might be flying along a river path is not
>> unreasonable. Hence, the characters accept the assumption that it might
>> without reservation, and Frodo only dismisses the possibility that it might
>> be a Balrog on completely unrelated grounds: "it was something colder [than
>> a Balrog or Balrog's shadow]".
>>
>> Only Frodo has the insight necessary to determine that it wasn't a Balrog.
>>
>
> "Hence, the characters accept the assumption that it might without
> reservation"is placing a rather stronger
Note: the above is a SINGLE line in my reader when I read your article.
Please check your margins. Reformatting....
>"Hence, the characters accept the assumption that it might without
>reservation"is placing a rather stronger interpretation on the passage
>than the text deserves. What we have is Legolas (who knows a Balrog when
>he sees one) asking "But who can say what it hit?" to which Gimli (who
>knows Durin's Bane when he sees it) replies "I cannot......too much [the
>shadow] reminded me of the shadow in Moria -- the shadow of the Balrog."
>It *reminded* him of the Balrog (or of its shadow), but he "cannot"
>say what it was. Boromir is plainly dying to hear Frodo's guess, and
>therefore presumably has no conclusion of his own. Aragorn says
>nuttin'.
And yet no one says, "Oh, it couldn't have been a Balrog -- it was flying."
Nor anything like that. So how is it "placing rather a stronger
interpretation on the passage than the text deserves"? What does the text
deserve? An interpretation that concludes Balrogs don't have wings and
cannot fly?
>"Nazgul have never been shown with wings, are not said to have had
>the power to fly, and until this point there is no reason to expect
>a flying Nazgul. " Right. Absolutely. No reason in the world
>to expect a Black Rider. But this is not an either-or question.
>They see a Something. It flies. It's Very Scary. They don't have
>a clue what it is. They just know it's Bad: (a) because the Orcs were
>rooting for it, and (b) because large dark shadowy things, after the
>Balrog experience, are not to be invited to tea. Nobody here suggests
>that it *is* a Balrog; just that it is *reminiscent* of a Balrog,
>and therefore unlikely to wish them well.
Gimli's words and Frodo's denial make it clear that the author intended a
connection with the Balrog that must be corrected. What was that thing? A
Balrog? No, it was something colder.
The connection is clear: it's shadowy, flying, and causes great fear or
anxiety. Why on earth would anyone compare it to a Balrog if Balrogs had
not displayed some similar qualities? It had been weeks since the
encounter with the Balrog. Even Sam's distorted sense of time leaves the
impression that he could recall at least a week in Lothlorien ("I can
remember three nights there for certain, and I seem to remember several
more..."). So the memory of the Balrog was not fresh in their minds -- not
as if it had just happened a day or two previously.
Mike Droney
It is already agreed by most people that Balrogs
were
definitely Maia, and various maia could take whatever
shape
suited them (Sauron had this power in the Silmarillion),
doesn't it follow that 'some' Balrogs could have
had wings,
some might not have had them, it all depended on
individual taste?
Or whether they choose Morgoth Airlines to get from
one part of Beleriand to another!
Mike
Barrie Cameron
> >Nazgul....
> 'But who can say what it hit?' said Legolas.
> 'I cannot,' said Gimli. 'But I am glad that the shadow came
> no nearer. I liked it not at all. Too much it reminded me of the
> shadow in Moria - the shadow of the Balrog,' he ended in a
> whisper.
>
IMHO it looks like the shadow that reminded Gimli of the Balrog - in
fact he says as much, does he not? Three times he uses the word "shadow"
while there is no mention of wings by any of the party. It is these
shadows of dread that are upper most in their minds during and following
this incident when discussing it in their camp later.
It sure looks as if this Balrog debate is impossible to lay down,
doesn't it? I for one couldn't resist replying to this latest challenge
...
Cheers!
--
Barrie I. CAMERON
Electrical Engineer
<bar...@actrix.gen.nz>
Eddie Hallahan
<o...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> Surely not "the" Eddie Hallahan from alt.flame???
>
> How nice to see you here Eddie. Enjoy yourself if it's your first time. We
> say that to all the boys. I haven't seen you post here before.
>
> Have I? Apart as a cross post from alt.flame?
Well, i've been here for a good wee while, mainly lurking but i've posted
a bit. Thats why I was able to point out that Wraith had made a fresh
point - I had seen all the old points.
>
> Well come on in. Sit down.
>
> This thread looks set to start up the whole Balrogs Wings debate afresh.
> You might see some "real" cascades, not ones composed mostly of the one
> line, bloated sig, bot-deployed rubbish you have had to suffer in
> alt.flame.
I've never actually read alt.flame don't see the point :)
Oh, yeah before i'm accused of it i'm not some miniscule little schizoid
chunk of MM's psyche. I'm me.
<snip for sake of sanity>
Barrie Cameron
>
> In article <rndb2.8$h%4.6...@lwnws01.ne.mediaone.net>, co...@ursolaris.spdcc.com (Robert S. Coren) wrote:
> >In article <74ife2$mnr$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>,
> >Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
> > co...@ursolaris.spdcc.com (Robert S. Coren) wrote:
> >>>So Nazgul have wings? (Hint: the wings used by the "winged Nazgul" are
> >>>not their own.)
> >>
> >>Someone brings up a really new approach, and you nit-pick about the phrase
> >>"winged Nazgul"? Come on! Even Tolkien used the phrase loosely!
> >
> >Balrog might be airborne above the company no more demonstrates that
> >Balrogs had wings than the fact that it was actually a Nazgul
> >demonstrates that Nazgul had wings.
>
> characters -- they have an opportunity at this point in the story to say,
> "But Balrogs don't have wings and can't fly". They don't. Hence, the
> image of the Balrog's wings is reinforced.
No. They are not thinking about our erudite debate of winged/not_winged
Balrogs, they are only thinking of this shadow of dread, that only
incidentally happens to have been coming for them from the air.
Wings are the last thing that concerns them at this time of fear.
>
> Only someone who wishes to deny the Balrog's wingedness would argue the
> passage doesn't add yet more weight to the literalist view.
Non sequitor! See above.
Nazgul have
> never been shown with wings, are not said to have had the power to fly, and
> until this point there is no reason to expect a flying Nazgul. If,
> however, the Balrog has survived the encounter with Gandalf, or there is
> another, the expectation that it might be flying along a river path is not
> unreasonable.
No. To this point, Gimli has not experienced the Nazgul's dread, but he
has experienced the shadow of dread of the Balrog.
Hence, the characters accept the assumption that it might
> without reservation, and Frodo only dismisses the possibility that it might
> be a Balrog on completely unrelated grounds: "it was something colder [than
> a Balrog or Balrog's shadow]".
No. His dismissal IS on very related grounds - he senses much more
keenly than the others (except perhaps the Elf) the dread of the Nazgul
and can detect the difference between that of the Balrog and the Nazgul.
>
> Only Frodo has the insight necessary to determine that it wasn't a Balrog.
Yes. But this is based on a comparison of the dread, and "wings or no
wings" are not factors in his, or the others, thinking following this
most recent terrifying experience of the Nazgul.
O'Neill Quigley
Eddie Hallahan <eddy.h...@strath.ac.uk> wrote in article
<eddy.hallahan-1...@tupaiidae.avms.strath.ac.uk>...
> In article <01be239e$dd043d00$f1867dc2@default>, "O'Neill Quigley"
> <o...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> I've never actually read alt.flame don't see the point :)
No, I found it a little dull at th etime, but there are some really
excellent posts there this week.
> Oh, yeah before i'm accused of it i'm not some miniscule little schizoid
> chunk of MM's psyche. I'm me.
Of course you're not Eddie. That was just me having you on. There are no
_little_ schizoid chunks of MMs psyche.
> <snip for sake of sanity>
Sanity. In this NG?
Nawwwwwwwww!
Nice to see you posting. Keep it up. Be seeing you.
Michael O'Neill.
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>>
>> Actually, it does. The Balrog's wings have already been seen by the
>> characters -- they have an opportunity at this point in the story to say,
>> "But Balrogs don't have wings and can't fly". They don't. Hence, the
>> image of the Balrog's wings is reinforced.
>
>No. They are not thinking about our erudite debate of winged/not_winged
>Balrogs, they are only thinking of this shadow of dread, that only
>incidentally happens to have been coming for them from the air.
>Wings are the last thing that concerns them at this time of fear.
This "shadow of dread", as you put it, was winged and flying. The
description makes that much clear. There would be no reason for Gimli
to wonder if it was a Balrog if they thought Balrogs couldn't fly and
didn't have wings.
>> Nazgul have never been shown with wings, are not said to have had
>> the power to fly, and until this point there is no reason to expect'
>> a flying Nazgul. If, however, the Balrog has survived the encounter
>> with Gandalf, or there is another, the expectation that it might be
>> flying along a river path is not unreasonable.
>
>No. To this point, Gimli has not experienced the Nazgul's dread, but he
>has experienced the shadow of dread of the Balrog.
In "The Ring Goes South" Gimli (along with everyone else) experiences a
similar experience as something flies overhead. It may have been a Winged
Nazgul, or not. Even Christopher Tolkien is unsure of what it was, but
Gimli's experience with things of dread is not limited to the encounter
with the Balrog.
>> Hence, the characters accept the assumption that it might
>> without reservation, and Frodo only dismisses the possibility that it might
>> be a Balrog on completely unrelated grounds: "it was something colder [than
>> a Balrog or Balrog's shadow]".
>
>No. His dismissal IS on very related grounds - he senses much more
>keenly than the others (except perhaps the Elf) the dread of the Nazgul
>and can detect the difference between that of the Balrog and the Nazgul.
"Unrelated" means "unrelated to the fact that both shadows were winged and
this one was flying". Frodo's dismissal has nothing to do with that.
>> Only Frodo has the insight necessary to determine that it wasn't a Balrog.
>
>Yes. But this is based on a comparison of the dread, and "wings or no
>wings" are not factors in his, or the others, thinking following this
>most recent terrifying experience of the Nazgul.
Wings are certainly factors -- the flying shadow is described with wings,
as is the Balrog, and no comparison would be acceptable if there were not
apparent physical resemblances.
Arok Wolvengrey
newcomer to the internet and RABT (though not to Middle Earth), I've
been utterly fascinated by some of the topics of discussion here. This,
and the whole "to fly or not to fly" Balrog debate are great examples,
but it leaves me wondering about the logic behind certain viewpoints.
For instance, if, as some would say, the appearance of wings on the
flying shadow (a "winged" Nazgul, as it is certain) is not an issue,
what exactly is allowing the "shadow" (which is clearly not just a
shadow) to fly? What else would any (wingless) members of the
Fellowship assume to be the means of propulsion if not wings? Secondly,
the much quoted statement of Frodo's ("No, it was something colder.") is
an instance of contrastive focus. If the flying shadow could not have
been a Balrog, there would not have been a need for a contrastive focus
construction. Thus, the statement, as Michael has been correctly
arguing, is indeed to be understood that the flying shadow is "colder"
than a Balrog. The comparison is made because it is a viable comparison
to make. It is a viable comparison to make because both the Balrog and
the flying shadow are nasty things, which fly!
Of course, you can ignore my meanderings. I've believed Balrogs have
wings since the first time I read LotR 20 or so years ago. And I became
a linguist because Professor Tolkien is the Master!
Arauka
John R. Cooper
wrote:
>IMHO it looks like the shadow that reminded Gimli of the Balrog - in
>fact he says as much, does he not? Three times he uses the word "shadow"
>while there is no mention of wings by any of the party. It is these
>shadows of dread that are upper most in their minds during and following
>this incident when discussing it in their camp later.
True.
However, Gimli is clearly uneasy about the possibility that the creature
Legolas hit was a Balrog (possibly even _the_ Balrog of Moria). That is why
Frodo reassures Gimli that "It was not a Balrog." Why reassure Gimli that
it was not a Balrog if Gimli did not really fear that possibility? And if
the party (or more specifically, Gimli) did not already believe that
Balrogs were capable of flight, why then contemplate the possibility at
all, much less to the point of expressing such fears verbally to the rest
of the group?
(a) Legolas hits Nazgul mounted upon flying fell-beast.
(b) Gimli fears the possibility that it was a/the Balrog.
(c) Gimli expresses his consternation openly.
(d) Frodo assures Gimli that it was not a Balrog.
To my mind, other chains of logic don't work:
(a) Legolas hits Nazgul mounted upon flying fell-beast.
(b) It reminds Gimli of "the shadow of the Balrog."
(c) Gimli expresses his dislike of menacing shadows.
(d) Frodo assures Gimli that it was not a Balrog.
One can imagine Gimli responding, "I spoke not of Balrogs, Frodo, but of
their SHADOWS. We all know that Balrogs do not bear wings, nor do they
share the sky with the eagles, so comfort me not like some small
dwarf-child who fears that which can not be!"
- John
Ryan Paddy
<367031e2....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
As arguments about th thoughts of charcaters in a fictional work go, that's
not bad. Which is why this subject is getting some attention. However, so
long as we're on that rather unreliable source of evidence, consider this:
Why didn't Frodo tell the Company he thought the flying thing was a Nazgul?
(a) He didn't want to scare them.
(b) He didn't want to think about Nazgul because of his trauma.
(c) He thought that talking about bad things summons them.
(d) He knew it wasn't a Nazgul because it had wings.
My point? The first three reasons look reasonable, but not the fourth. Maybe
it is like this:
1) Frodo knew that Nazgul had no wings, yet that's what he thought the
flying thing was.
2) Gimli knew that the Balrog had no wings, yet that's what he thought the
flying thing was.
See the comparison? If 1 seems likely to you, why not 2? The thing that both
Frodo and Gimli were judging by was the feeling they got, not the wings.
Righto!
Ryan
['must stoooppppp....']
Michael Martinez
>1) Frodo knew that Nazgul had no wings, yet that's what he thought the
>flying thing was.
>2) Gimli knew that the Balrog had no wings, yet that's what he thought the
>flying thing was.
>
>See the comparison? If 1 seems likely to you, why not 2? The thing that both
>Frodo and Gimli were judging by was the feeling they got, not the wings.
"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."
"*Elbereth Gilthoniel*!' sighed Legolas as he looked up. Even as
he did so, a dark shape, like a cloud and yet not a cloud, for it
moved far more swiftly, came out of the blackness in the South,
and sped towards the Company, BLOTTING OUT ALL LIGHT AS IT
APPROACHED. SOON IT APPEARED AS A GREAT WINGED CREATURE, blacker
than the pits in the night. Fierce voices rose up to greet it
from across the water. Frodo felt a sudden chill running
through him and clutching at his heart; there was a deadly
cold, like the memory of an old wound, in his shoulder. He
crouched down, as if to hide."
In both encounters there are winged creatures (regardless of whether anyone
thinks the wings were "real" wings or not). In both encounters a great
darkness approaches and increases.
Yet in the second encounter Frodo is sensitive to cues which the others
cannot perceive. He and he alone declares that it was not a Balrog, and
the reader (along with Frodo) is reminded of the encounter on Weathertop
and the Morgul-wound. Hence, we, too, are cued in early that it is not a
Balrog. But the other members of the Company cannot know what it is or
isn't -- and in their personal experiences, what they see is very similar
to what they saw in Khazad-dum.
Graham Lockwood
{SNIP}
>Why didn't Frodo tell the Company he thought the flying thing was a Nazgul?
>
> (a) He didn't want to scare them.
> (b) He didn't want to think about Nazgul because of his trauma.
> (c) He thought that talking about bad things summons them.
> (d) He knew it wasn't a Nazgul because it had wings.
>
>My point? The first three reasons look reasonable, but not the fourth.
Maybe
>it is like this:
>
>flying thing was.
>2) Gimli knew that the Balrog had no wings, yet that's what he thought the
>flying thing was.
>
>See the comparison? If 1 seems likely to you, why not 2? The thing that
both
>Frodo and Gimli were judging by was the feeling they got, not the wings.
Frodo had a much better sense of what a Ringwraith was than Gimli had of
what a Balrog was. Heck, Frodo had almost been turned into a wraith himself
and he always carried around the Ring that was more in tune with the Nazgul
than anything else in ME.
>['must stoooppppp....']
"Help me, Sam! Help, me, Sam! Hold my hand! I can't stop it."
"Daisy. Daisy."
||// // Lord Graham of the Locked Wood, || //
|// // ||//
(/ // Royal Detective at Need |//
||// Torog Hunter Extraordinaire (/)
|// and //|
(/ Warden of the Keys //||
|| of the TEUNC Listserver // ||
O'Neill Quigley
was because I first saw your post there in answer to mine. After your reply
above, I then checked AFT and saw your post here.
You must have cross-posted.....
Sorry to have mistaken you for an alt.flame indigenous poster.
Michael O'Neill
O'Neill Quigley <o...@indigo.ie> wrote in article
<01be2442$55b32d80$e4867dc2@default>...
Michael Martinez
>Oh...and so long as we're playing the 'which users are actually Martinez'
>game, my money is on Wraith. If I was in Martinez's position, and I wanted
>to re-introduce this whole Balrog wings topic from a fresh angle, I might
>make a few careful posts from a dummy user, so that it wouldn't turn into a
>personality conflict thing. Well...actually, I wouldn't, but it wouldn't
>surprise me much if MM did. Anyone who doubts his use of alternative user
>names should have a look back to earlier this year to when he flamed Mike
>Kew (Hi Mike!) under a succession of usernames that went
>'A'...'BIG'...'TOLKIEN'...'FAN', as well as the indelible username 'A True
>Tolkien Fan' (and what are the rest of us, Martinez, diced liver?), to evade
>Mike's killfile and engage him in flame warfare.
Wrong as usual. Mike Kew was engaging in "Flame-And-Killfile" tactics,
which form of net abuse is considered highly inappropriate. Until he
stopped flaming, I kept following up to let him know I would not tolerate
the tactic.
>Have a look at the 'Elves of Lorien' thread on Dejanews for his work.
>Actually... I just looked at Dejanews now, and some of the best ones
>don't seem to be archived. What's left is just his whining, not much
>of his abuse. How eerily 1984ish.
Your lies are the only abuse around here, and the flames and
unprovoked attacks you've posted in the past are archived there as well.
All of my articles are archived.
>If I'm wrong (quite likely), I'm really, really sorry, Wraith. ;)
You're wrong, as usual, and on many points. But in this case you weren't
really interested in the truth, were you?
Grimgard
>Legolas hit was a Balrog (possibly even _the_ Balrog of Moria). That is why
>Frodo reassures Gimli that "It was not a Balrog." Why reassure Gimli that
>it was not a Balrog if Gimli did not really fear that possibility? And if
>the party (or more specifically, Gimli) did not already believe that
>Balrogs were capable of flight, why then contemplate the possibility at
>all, much less to the point of expressing such fears verbally to the rest
>of the group?
The book never says that Gimli actually thinks it's a Balrog, just that it
reminds him of a Balrog. Frodo and Gimli were having a casual conversation,
probably not weighing their words as though they might be cross- examined by F.
Lee Bailey.
Grimgard
Politicians and diapers need to be changed frequently, often for the same
reason.
Gabriel Sechan
>
>It is already agreed by most people that Balrogs were
>definitely Maia, and various maia could take whatever shape
>suited them (Sauron had this power in the Silmarillion),
>doesn't it follow that 'some' Balrogs could have had wings,
>some might not have had them, it all depended on
>individual taste?
Exactly my thoughts. It was said in Unfinished Tails that the maiar
could take any skin they want. In fact, Olorin (Gandalf) often went
among the elves with no form, invisible. If Gandalf could go around
without a body, Im sure a normal maiar could grow wings, even if they
were corrupted by Morgoths influence.
Brian E. Clark
> I think this bears repeating: Frodo knew that Nazgul had no wings, yet
> that's what he thought the flying thing was. The fact that it was flying
> apparently didn't allay his suspicions of it's identity, although he knew
> Nazgul were wingless.
Frodo also knew that the Nazgûl were hoofless. ;-) What I
mean is, Frodo knew the Ringwraiths' locomotive limitations
had previously been overcome by an appropriate choice of
mount.
Frodo's awareness of the Nazgûl seemed internal. I don't get
the same feeling when reading Gimli's declaration of relief
that the shadow came no closer. The latter seems (to me) to
refer to the winged shadow everyone saw pass overhead,
although obviously there is some wiggle room. :)
--
Brian E. Clark
brian<at>telerama<dot>com
____________________________________________________
It is a sin to believe evil of others, but it is
seldom a mistake. -- H. L. Mencken
John R. Cooper
wrote:
>I think this bears repeating: Frodo knew that Nazgul had no wings...
As far as we know Frodo had no such fixed notion of Nazgul. He learned
from Gandalf that their horses were destroyed at the ford at Rivendell and
that they would soon have new steeds, and likely more foul than the horses.
By the time of the scene in question here, Frodo had no reason to doubt the
possibility that the Nazgul were now mounted upon winged steeds.
As for Gimli, it is certainly possible that he possessed more (prior)
knowledge of Balrogs than Tolkien supplied to us in the Moria scene, and
therefore knew they could fly. We don't know this for sure, but we don't
NOT know either... ;)
- John
William C. Hicklin
Gabriel Sechan wrote:
This has been raised before, and it has been answered before. Tolkien
wrote (in the Osanwe-kenta, a part of "Quendi and Eldar" which was not
published in HME but which has been published in Vinyar Tengwar) that
those Maiar who entered Morgoth's service eventually became fixed in the
forms they had adopted. Shape-changing is reserved to the good guys.
One might respond "Hey, but Sauron changed shape fighting Huan!" Well,
he did. To which the response is (a) that story is very old, dating from
about 1929, and never revised; and (b) more to the point, Sauron
*eventually* lost that power. After the fall of Numenor, he was stuck.
BTW, "Gandalf" could not go around without a body. *Olorin* could, but
as Gandalf/Mithrandir he was an incarnate being, tied to a permanent
physical body.
Steve Dunn
Michael Martinez wrote in message <74mrrt$ins$2...@camel29.mindspring.com>...
>In article <366E33B5...@gamewood.net>, soli...@gamewood.net wrote:
>>Michael Martinez wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, it does. The Balrog's wings have already been seen by the
>>> characters -- they have an opportunity at this point in the story to
say,
>>> "But Balrogs don't have wings and can't fly". They don't. Hence, the
>>> image of the Balrog's wings is reinforced.
The fellowship never saw the Balrog fly. They saw a large, possibly winged
creature. Their prior experience with winged(possibly) creatures would make
them assume that it could fly, but since they never saw the thing fly, this
doesn't say whether or not it had wings. If you saw something and thought it
could fly, but never saw it fly, you would assume that it did. Their lack
of experience reinforces this image, but there is an equal chance that their
image is warped.
>>>
>>> Only someone who wishes to deny the Balrog's wingedness would argue the
>>> passage doesn't add yet more weight to the literalist view. Nazgul have
>>> never been shown with wings, are not said to have had the power to fly,
and
>>> until this point there is no reason to expect a flying Nazgul. If,
>>> however, the Balrog has survived the encounter with Gandalf, or there is
>>> another, the expectation that it might be flying along a river path is
not
>>> unreasonable. Hence, the characters accept the assumption that it might
>>> without reservation, and Frodo only dismisses the possibility that it
might
>>> be a Balrog on completely unrelated grounds: "it was something colder
[than
>>> a Balrog or Balrog's shadow]".
>>>
>>> Only Frodo has the insight necessary to determine that it wasn't a
Balrog.
>>>
>>
>> "Hence, the characters accept the assumption that it might without
>> reservation"is placing a rather stronger
>
>
>Note: the above is a SINGLE line in my reader when I read your article.
>Please check your margins. Reformatting....
>
>>"Hence, the characters accept the assumption that it might without
>>reservation"is placing a rather stronger interpretation on the passage
>>than the text deserves. What we have is Legolas (who knows a Balrog when
>>he sees one) asking "But who can say what it hit?" to which Gimli (who
>>knows Durin's Bane when he sees it) replies "I cannot......too much [the
>>shadow] reminded me of the shadow in Moria -- the shadow of the Balrog."
>>It *reminded* him of the Balrog (or of its shadow), but he "cannot"
>>say what it was. Boromir is plainly dying to hear Frodo's guess, and
>>therefore presumably has no conclusion of his own. Aragorn says
>>nuttin'.
>
>And yet no one says, "Oh, it couldn't have been a Balrog -- it was flying."
>Nor anything like that. So how is it "placing rather a stronger
>interpretation on the passage than the text deserves"? What does the text
>deserve? An interpretation that concludes Balrogs don't have wings and
>cannot fly?
The text doesn't imply anything. It is all a matter of viewpoint. They saw
either a winged shadow, or real wings, but in either case, they associate
wings with the Balrog. This doesn't say anything about whether they exist or
not.
>
>>"Nazgul have never been shown with wings, are not said to have had
>>the power to fly, and until this point there is no reason to expect
>>a flying Nazgul. " Right. Absolutely. No reason in the world
>>to expect a Black Rider. But this is not an either-or question.
>>They see a Something. It flies. It's Very Scary. They don't have
>>a clue what it is. They just know it's Bad: (a) because the Orcs were
>>rooting for it, and (b) because large dark shadowy things, after the
>>Balrog experience, are not to be invited to tea. Nobody here suggests
>>that it *is* a Balrog; just that it is *reminiscent* of a Balrog,
>>and therefore unlikely to wish them well.
>
>Gimli's words and Frodo's denial make it clear that the author intended a
>connection with the Balrog that must be corrected. What was that thing? A
>Balrog? No, it was something colder.
>
>The connection is clear: it's shadowy, flying, and causes great fear or
>anxiety. Why on earth would anyone compare it to a Balrog if Balrogs had
>not displayed some similar qualities? It had been weeks since the
>encounter with the Balrog. Even Sam's distorted sense of time leaves the
>impression that he could recall at least a week in Lothlorien ("I can
>remember three nights there for certain, and I seem to remember several
>more..."). So the memory of the Balrog was not fresh in their minds -- not
>as if it had just happened a day or two previously.
If I was on a bridge, in a cave, over a chasm, and saw a large, dark beast
that was on fire, wielding a whip and a sword, and had a dark shadow behind
it, I would be so scared out of my mind I wouldn't notice, nor would I care,
if the thing had wings or not. Even if I was a king like Aragorn, I would
still be scared out of my wits. Their views were muddled by fear, so the
description of what they saw would obviously be skewered.
Ryan Paddy
>Ryan Paddy wrote in message <74qfp9$sj1$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>...
>{SNIP}
>>Why didn't Frodo tell the Company he thought the flying thing was a
Nazgul?
>>
>> (a) He didn't want to scare them.
>> (b) He didn't want to think about Nazgul because of his trauma.
>> (c) He thought that talking about bad things summons them.
>> (d) He knew it wasn't a Nazgul because it had wings.
>>
>>My point? The first three reasons look reasonable, but not the fourth.
>> Maybe it is like this:
>>
>>flying thing was.
>>2) Gimli knew that the Balrog had no wings, yet that's what he thought the
>>flying thing was.
>>
>>See the comparison? If 1 seems likely to you, why not 2? The thing that
>>both Frodo and Gimli were judging by was the feeling they got, not the
>>wings.
>
>Frodo had a much better sense of what a Ringwraith was than Gimli had of
>what a Balrog was. Heck, Frodo had almost been turned into a wraith
himself
>and he always carried around the Ring that was more in tune with the Nazgul
>than anything else in ME.
Hi Graham, good point. Frodo was certainly more tuned into Nazgul than Gimli
was to the Balrog. But the Balrog's fearful effect must have apparent to
Gimli, and he is surely capable of comparing it to that of the Nazgul. And
just because Gimli was not as wise or insightful as Frodo doesn't mean he
can't make an associative leap based purely on a gut feeling inspired by
something he encounters.
I'm not saying categorically that this is what happened, as that would
involve pretending to be able to read the deceased author's mind. But it's
as plausible as any other explanation.
I think this bears repeating: Frodo knew that Nazgul had no wings, yet
that's what he thought the flying thing was. The fact that it was flying
apparently didn't allay his suspicions of it's identity, although he knew
Nazgul were wingless. Why couldn't the same be true of Gimli and his
association to the Balrog?
--
Oh...and so long as we're playing the 'which users are actually Martinez'
game, my money is on Wraith. If I was in Martinez's position, and I wanted
to re-introduce this whole Balrog wings topic from a fresh angle, I might
make a few careful posts from a dummy user, so that it wouldn't turn into a
personality conflict thing. Well...actually, I wouldn't, but it wouldn't
surprise me much if MM did. Anyone who doubts his use of alternative user
names should have a look back to earlier this year to when he flamed Mike
Kew (Hi Mike!) under a succession of usernames that went
'A'...'BIG'...'TOLKIEN'...'FAN', as well as the indelible username 'A True
Tolkien Fan' (and what are the rest of us, Martinez, diced liver?), to evade
Mike's killfile and engage him in flame warfare. Have a look at the 'Elves
of Lorien' thread on Dejanews for his work. Actually... I just looked at
Dejanews now, and some of the best ones don't seem to be archived. What's
left is just his whining, not much of his abuse. How eerily 1984ish.
If I'm wrong (quite likely), I'm really, really sorry, Wraith. ;)
Righto!
Ryan
['Whoever has even once become notorious by base fraud, even if he speaks
the truth, gains no belief' ~ Phraedrus]
Barrie Cameron
>
> On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 21:44:57 -0800, Barrie Cameron <bar...@actrix.gen.nz>
> wrote:
>
> >IMHO it looks like the shadow that reminded Gimli of the Balrog - in
> >fact he says as much, does he not? Three times he uses the word "shadow"
> >while there is no mention of wings by any of the party. It is these
> >shadows of dread that are upper most in their minds during and following
> >this incident when discussing it in their camp later.
>
> True.
>
> Legolas hit was a Balrog (possibly even _the_ Balrog of Moria). That is why
> Frodo reassures Gimli that "It was not a Balrog."
I do not believe that Frodo is in fact 'reassuring' Gimli. In Frodo's
mind the Nazgul is a worse enemy than the Balrog, though for the party
just as bad if met on a dark and stormy night!
Why reassure Gimli that
> it was not a Balrog if Gimli did not really fear that possibility?
But he did fear that possibility. For Gimli, not experienced at close
hand with Nazgul, the cloud of dread reminded him of a Balrog.
And if
> the party (or more specifically, Gimli) did not already believe that
> Balrogs were capable of flight, why then contemplate the possibility at
> all, much less to the point of expressing such fears verbally to the rest
> of the group?
As mentioned previously, the mechanism of flight was not the thing that
impressed them or influenced their conversation, it was the cloud of
dread.
>
> (a) Legolas hits Nazgul mounted upon flying fell-beast.
> (b) Gimli fears the possibility that it was a/the Balrog.
There is a gap of time here in which subconscious minds have time to
consider the possibilities. For Gimli (from his experience to date) the
closet thing suggested by the cloud of dread is a Balrog :
> (c) Gimli expresses his consternation openly.
Frodo's experience includes that of a close encounter with the Nazgul :
> (d) Frodo assures Gimli that it was not a Balrog.
>
> To my mind, other chains of logic don't work:
>
> (a) Legolas hits Nazgul mounted upon flying fell-beast.
There is a significant delay before Gimli expresses this :
> (b) It reminds Gimli of "the shadow of the Balrog."
> (c) Gimli expresses his dislike of menacing shadows.
Who wouldn't?
> (d) Frodo assures Gimli that it was not a Balrog.
Frodo (IMHO) is not assuring anyone of anything. If any thing he is
warning or at least expressing his graver missgivings.
>
> One can imagine Gimli responding, "I spoke not of Balrogs, Frodo, but of
> their SHADOWS. We all know that Balrogs do not bear wings, nor do they
> share the sky with the eagles, so comfort me not like some small
> dwarf-child who fears that which can not be!"
Your imaginings here, while colourful and amusing are not, I feel,
relevant, - as explained above.
Barrie Cameron
>
> In article <74qfp9$sj1$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, "Ryan Paddy" <ryan...@innocent.com> wrote:
> >1) Frodo knew that Nazgul had no wings, yet that's what he thought the
> >flying thing was.
> >2) Gimli knew that the Balrog had no wings, yet that's what he thought the
> >flying thing was.
> >
> >See the comparison? If 1 seems likely to you, why not 2? The thing that both
> >Frodo and Gimli were judging by was the feeling they got, not the wings.
>
> 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;
[NB emphasis is MM's)
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."
Ah, Michael, your quoting out of context. Please read the whole chapter
again in one session, having first emptied your mind of any preconceived
ideas of Balrogs having wings. Please accept this suggestion in the kind
spirit that it is intended.
>
> "*Elbereth Gilthoniel*!' sighed Legolas as he looked up. Even as
> he did so, a dark shape, like a cloud and yet not a cloud, for it
> moved far more swiftly, came out of the blackness in the South,
> and sped towards the Company, BLOTTING OUT ALL LIGHT AS IT
> APPROACHED. SOON IT APPEARED AS A GREAT WINGED CREATURE,
[NB emphasis is MM's]
blacker
> than the pits in the night. Fierce voices rose up to greet it
> from across the water. Frodo felt a sudden chill running
> through him and clutching at his heart; there was a deadly
> cold, like the memory of an old wound, in his shoulder. He
> crouched down, as if to hide."
>
> In both encounters there are winged creatures (regardless of whether anyone
> thinks the wings were "real" wings or not). In both encounters a great
> darkness approaches and increases.
Yes, no argument with this. But wings are not a topic of conversation at
the camp site, at least as far as is reported to us from TLOTR.
>
> Yet in the second encounter Frodo is sensitive to cues which the others
> cannot perceive. He and he alone declares that it was not a Balrog, and
> the reader (along with Frodo) is reminded of the encounter on Weathertop
> and the Morgul-wound. Hence, we, too, are cued in early that it is not a
> Balrog. But the other members of the Company cannot know what it is or
> isn't -- and in their personal experiences, what they see is very similar
> to what they saw in Khazad-dum.
Yes, quite right, in so far as what they did actually see at the river,
which was not really very much, mainly a cloud/dark shape seen at a
distance. But they did feel the dread, and this was a more powerful
experience than the visual one.
Cheers.
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>> thinks the wings were "real" wings or not). In both encounters a great
>> darkness approaches and increases.
>
>Yes, no argument with this. But wings are not a topic of conversation at
>the camp site, at least as far as is reported to us from TLOTR.
The winged shadows are both referred to. Hence, "wings are a topic of
conversation" in the boats (there was no camp site).
>> Yet in the second encounter Frodo is sensitive to cues which the others
>> cannot perceive. He and he alone declares that it was not a Balrog, and
>> the reader (along with Frodo) is reminded of the encounter on Weathertop
>> and the Morgul-wound. Hence, we, too, are cued in early that it is not a
>> Balrog. But the other members of the Company cannot know what it is or
>> isn't -- and in their personal experiences, what they see is very similar
>> to what they saw in Khazad-dum.
>
>Yes, quite right, in so far as what they did actually see at the river,
>which was not really very much, mainly a cloud/dark shape seen at a
>distance. But they did feel the dread, and this was a more powerful
>experience than the visual one.
What they saw was:
"Even as he did so, a dark shape, like a cloud and yet not a cloud,
for it moved far more swiftly, came out of the blackness in the
South, and sped towards the Company, blotting out all light as it
approached. SOON IT APPEARED AS A GREAT WINGED CREATURE...."
A great winged creature -- according to Tolkien. Making jokes about
rereading the whole chapter isn't going to change that fact.
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote in message <74mrrt$ins$2...@camel29.mindspring.com>...
>>In article <366E33B5...@gamewood.net>, soli...@gamewood.net wrote:
>>>Michael Martinez wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, it does. The Balrog's wings have already been seen by the
>>>> characters -- they have an opportunity at this point in the story to
>>>> say, "But Balrogs don't have wings and can't fly". They don't.
>>>> Hence, the image of the Balrog's wings is reinforced.
>
>The fellowship never saw the Balrog fly. They saw a large, possibly winged
>creature. Their prior experience with winged(possibly) creatures would make
>them assume that it could fly, but since they never saw the thing fly, this
>doesn't say whether or not it had wings. If you saw something and thought it
>could fly, but never saw it fly, you would assume that it did. Their lack
>of experience reinforces this image, but there is an equal chance that their
>image is warped.
Their image would be based strictly on what they saw. I'm pretty sure
Tolkien didn't have any of the charcaters debate whether the Balrog was
winged or could fly. But he did have Gimli say that a flying winged
creature that had the appearance of a shadow reminded him of the Balrog's
shadow. He had shape and dread to judge it by. He didn't compare it to
the crows the Company saw in Hollin. He didn't compare it to the wolves
that attacked them. He didn't compare it to Gollum. He didn't compare it
to the Orcs and Trolls. He didn't compare it to the flying thing that
passed over them in Hollin. He didn't compare it to the Watcher in the
Water.
He compared it to the Balrog. Why? It's not like the trip had been
uneventful up to that point.
>>And yet no one says, "Oh, it couldn't have been a Balrog -- it was flying."
>>Nor anything like that. So how is it "placing rather a stronger
>>interpretation on the passage than the text deserves"? What does the text
>>deserve? An interpretation that concludes Balrogs don't have wings and
>>cannot fly?
>
>The text doesn't imply anything. It is all a matter of viewpoint. They saw
>either a winged shadow, or real wings, but in either case, they associate
>wings with the Balrog. This doesn't say anything about whether they exist or
>not.
Gimli very clearly refers to a Balrog. Frodo very clearly denies that the
flying thing was a Balrog. Whether the Balrog has "real wings" (whatever
those may be) really has nothing to do with whether Gimli was comparing the
flying winged shadow to the Balrog.
>>The connection is clear: it's shadowy, flying, and causes great fear or
>>anxiety. Why on earth would anyone compare it to a Balrog if Balrogs had
>>not displayed some similar qualities? It had been weeks since the
>>encounter with the Balrog. Even Sam's distorted sense of time leaves the
>>impression that he could recall at least a week in Lothlorien ("I can
>>remember three nights there for certain, and I seem to remember several
>>more..."). So the memory of the Balrog was not fresh in their minds -- not
>>as if it had just happened a day or two previously.
>
>If I was on a bridge, in a cave, over a chasm, and saw a large, dark beast
>that was on fire, wielding a whip and a sword, and had a dark shadow behind
>it, I would be so scared out of my mind I wouldn't notice, nor would I care,
>if the thing had wings or not. Even if I was a king like Aragorn, I would
>still be scared out of my wits. Their views were muddled by fear, so the
>description of what they saw would obviously be skewered.
The dark shadow was AROUND the Balrog -- it was not really a shadow. It
was a darkness which Tolkien sometimes referred to as a shadow. There is
really no word in the English language for what it was. It can best be
described as the darkness surrounding a Balrog, but that's a phrase, not
a word.
And the fact remains that Tolkien wrote the story a certain way: two
creatures of darkness with wings and emanating dread approach the Company,
and Gimli said that one reminded him of the other.
Does that prove the Balrog had wings? No, but it confirms what the text
says in "The Bridge of Khazad-dum": that there were wings for the Company
to behold.
Grimgard
>was a darkness which Tolkien sometimes referred to as a shadow. There is
>really no word in the English language for what it was. It can best be
>described as the darkness surrounding a Balrog, but that's a phrase, not
>a word.
We could call it the Balrog's 'event horizon.' : )
Steve Dunn
Michael Martinez wrote in message <74so7n$ipf$4...@camel19.mindspring.com>...
>>>In article <366E33B5...@gamewood.net>, soli...@gamewood.net wrote:
>>>>Michael Martinez wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, it does. The Balrog's wings have already been seen by the
>>>>> characters -- they have an opportunity at this point in the story to
>>>>> say, "But Balrogs don't have wings and can't fly". They don't.
>>>>> Hence, the image of the Balrog's wings is reinforced.
>>
>>The fellowship never saw the Balrog fly. They saw a large, possibly winged
>>creature. Their prior experience with winged(possibly) creatures would
make
>>them assume that it could fly, but since they never saw the thing fly,
this
>>doesn't say whether or not it had wings. If you saw something and thought
it
>>could fly, but never saw it fly, you would assume that it did. Their lack
>>of experience reinforces this image, but there is an equal chance that
their
>>image is warped.
>
>Tolkien didn't have any of the charcaters debate whether the Balrog was
>winged or could fly. But he did have Gimli say that a flying winged
>creature that had the appearance of a shadow reminded him of the Balrog's
>shadow. He had shape and dread to judge it by. He didn't compare it to
>the crows the Company saw in Hollin. He didn't compare it to the wolves
>that attacked them. He didn't compare it to Gollum. He didn't compare it
>to the Orcs and Trolls. He didn't compare it to the flying thing that
>passed over them in Hollin. He didn't compare it to the Watcher in the
>Water.
>
>He compared it to the Balrog. Why? It's not like the trip had been
>uneventful up to that point.
The Balrog was a different kind of evil. I think, in my opinion, that
the Balrog was a greater evil than all them in that it was an ancient evil,
more akin to the evil of Sauron and Morgoth and the Ringwraiths, rather than
to orcs or trolls or wargs. It was of such an evil that it could not only be
beheld, but also felt, somewhat like the Morgul knife, just less potent and
concentrated.
In sticking with my original post, it still has to do with viewpoints.
Gimli saw a winged shape fly over them. When they saw the Balrog, it
appeared to be a large, winged creature. They compared the shadow to what
they saw. I don't debate that. What I'm saying is that they had just as much
of an idea about what it was as we do. They don't know, as they don't have
all the facts. They went on the same information as we go on when we read
the book, which is contradictory and limited.
>
>>>And yet no one says, "Oh, it couldn't have been a Balrog -- it was
flying."
>>>Nor anything like that. So how is it "placing rather a stronger
>>>interpretation on the passage than the text deserves"? What does the
text
>>>deserve? An interpretation that concludes Balrogs don't have wings and
>>>cannot fly?
>>
>>The text doesn't imply anything. It is all a matter of viewpoint. They saw
>>either a winged shadow, or real wings, but in either case, they associate
>>wings with the Balrog. This doesn't say anything about whether they exist
or
>>not.
>
>Gimli very clearly refers to a Balrog. Frodo very clearly denies that the
>flying thing was a Balrog. Whether the Balrog has "real wings" (whatever
>those may be) really has nothing to do with whether Gimli was comparing the
>flying winged shadow to the Balrog.
>
>>>The connection is clear: it's shadowy, flying, and causes great fear or
>>>anxiety. Why on earth would anyone compare it to a Balrog if Balrogs had
>>>not displayed some similar qualities? It had been weeks since the
>>>encounter with the Balrog. Even Sam's distorted sense of time leaves the
>>>impression that he could recall at least a week in Lothlorien ("I can
>>>remember three nights there for certain, and I seem to remember several
>>>more..."). So the memory of the Balrog was not fresh in their minds --
not
>>>as if it had just happened a day or two previously.
>>
>>If I was on a bridge, in a cave, over a chasm, and saw a large, dark beast
>>that was on fire, wielding a whip and a sword, and had a dark shadow
behind
>>it, I would be so scared out of my mind I wouldn't notice, nor would I
care,
>>if the thing had wings or not. Even if I was a king like Aragorn, I would
>>still be scared out of my wits. Their views were muddled by fear, so the
>>description of what they saw would obviously be skewered.
>
>The dark shadow was AROUND the Balrog -- it was not really a shadow. It
>was a darkness which Tolkien sometimes referred to as a shadow. There is
>really no word in the English language for what it was. It can best be
>described as the darkness surrounding a Balrog, but that's a phrase, not
>a word.
>
>And the fact remains that Tolkien wrote the story a certain way: two
>creatures of darkness with wings and emanating dread approach the Company,
>and Gimli said that one reminded him of the other.
>
>Does that prove the Balrog had wings? No, but it confirms what the text
>says in "The Bridge of Khazad-dum": that there were wings for the Company
>to behold.
Do you mean physical wings, or a wing-like shape that they saw? You seem to
be saying that the Balrog might not have wings, but rather that the
Fellowship might have seen a wing-like shape around the Balrog. You seem to
be agreeing with what I have been saying.
Steve Dunn
Michael Martinez wrote in message <74v012$9oq$1...@camel21.mindspring.com>...
>In article <74ulpf$5ss$1...@ins8.netins.net>, "Steve Dunn" <sd...@netins.net>
wrote:
>>Michael Martinez wrote in message <74so7n$ipf$4...@camel19.mindspring.com>...
>>>
>>>Their image would be based strictly on what they saw. I'm pretty sure
>>>Tolkien didn't have any of the charcaters debate whether the Balrog was
>>>winged or could fly. But he did have Gimli say that a flying winged
>>>creature that had the appearance of a shadow reminded him of the Balrog's
>>>shadow. He had shape and dread to judge it by. He didn't compare it to
>>>the crows the Company saw in Hollin. He didn't compare it to the wolves
>>>that attacked them. He didn't compare it to Gollum. He didn't compare
it
>>>to the Orcs and Trolls. He didn't compare it to the flying thing that
>>>passed over them in Hollin. He didn't compare it to the Watcher in the
>>>Water.
>>>
>>>He compared it to the Balrog. Why? It's not like the trip had been
>>>uneventful up to that point.
>>
>> The Balrog was a different kind of evil. I think, in my opinion, that
>>the Balrog was a greater evil than all them in that it was an ancient
evil,
>>more akin to the evil of Sauron and Morgoth and the Ringwraiths, rather
than
>>to orcs or trolls or wargs. It was of such an evil that it could not only
be
>>beheld, but also felt, somewhat like the Morgul knife, just less potent
and
>>concentrated.
>
>in at least one of his letters. But they weren't discussing relative
>evilness, or comparing levels of power. Gimli was reminded of the shadow
>of the Balrog, and yet Frodo had been alerted to the presence of a Nazgul
>by cues not available to the others
>> In sticking with my original post, it still has to do with viewpoints.
>>Gimli saw a winged shape fly over them. When they saw the Balrog, it
>>appeared to be a large, winged creature. They compared the shadow to what
>>they saw. I don't debate that. What I'm saying is that they had just as
much
>>of an idea about what it was as we do. They don't know, as they don't have
>>all the facts. They went on the same information as we go on when we read
>>the book, which is contradictory and limited.
>
>We actually have better information than Gimli and the others (except
>Frodo) had. That is what I'm trying to point out. To "see" the shadowy
>winged creature at the same level as Gimli, Legolas, Aragorn, et. al, you
>cannot acknowledge the cues Frodo was given.
I was referring to the Moria encounter, not the shadow encounter. I agree
with you about the shadow encounter. I do not think that Frodo had any extra
knowlege about the bridge encounter, although Gandalf might have.
>
>[lotsa snippage]
>
>>>The dark shadow was AROUND the Balrog -- it was not really a shadow. It
>>>was a darkness which Tolkien sometimes referred to as a shadow. There is
>>>really no word in the English language for what it was. It can best be
>>>described as the darkness surrounding a Balrog, but that's a phrase, not
>>>a word.
>>>
>>>And the fact remains that Tolkien wrote the story a certain way: two
>>>creatures of darkness with wings and emanating dread approach the
Company,
>>>and Gimli said that one reminded him of the other.
>>>
>>>Does that prove the Balrog had wings? No, but it confirms what the text
>>>says in "The Bridge of Khazad-dum": that there were wings for the Company
>>>to behold.
>>
>>Do you mean physical wings, or a wing-like shape that they saw? You seem
to
>>be saying that the Balrog might not have wings, but rather that the
>>Fellowship might have seen a wing-like shape around the Balrog. You seem
to
>>be agreeing with what I have been saying.
>
>What are "physical wings" where a Balrog is concerned? What are Balrog
>wings made of? What is a Balrog made of? Fire came from its nostrils,
>darkness emanated from it, its "mane" caught fire when it leaped over an
>apparently volcanic fissure -- this was not a creature of flesh and blood,
>feathers and down.
>
>The wings the Fellowship saw were "wings" as much as wings on a bird or on
>a wooden replica of a bird are wings. That doesn't mean they were bird
>wings, wooden replica wings, bat wings, fruit-and-fiber wings, or anything
>other than "Balrog wings", whatever those may be.
This sheds new light on the wings/no wings debate for me. I always felt that
the "wingers", if you will, thought the Balrog had physical wings. I can
visualize wings made of shadow, or fire, or any other substance related to a
Balrog. I just can't visualize physical wings.
>
>The Fellowship saw two winged creatures. Both approached them in darkened
>situations and appeared to be "shadowy"; both emanated fear (well, the
>Nazgul on the winged steed emanated fear). The basis for comparison is
>there. Otherwise, Gimli's statement doesn't fit. Why compare a Balrog to
>an Uruk? Why compare Theoden's Riders of Rohan to the Shirrifs of the
>Shire?
>
>The appearance was similar enough for Gimli to make the comparison. Frodo
>had to dispel any illusions about whether THE Balrog (which they did not
>know was dead) or A Balrog was coming up from the south.
The shape is similar. And, as I said above, I was arguing with the physical
wings theory, as opposed to the wing theory in general. But, if the wings
were so ethereal and substanceless that they could be a shadow, how could
Gimli tell if they were wings or not?
>
>THAT is an interpretation (for the sake of those who aren't sure but don't
>know they aren't sure of what an interpretation is).
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote in message <74so7n$ipf$4...@camel19.mindspring.com>...
>>
>>Their image would be based strictly on what they saw. I'm pretty sure
>>Tolkien didn't have any of the charcaters debate whether the Balrog was
>>winged or could fly. But he did have Gimli say that a flying winged
>>creature that had the appearance of a shadow reminded him of the Balrog's
>>shadow. He had shape and dread to judge it by. He didn't compare it to
>>the crows the Company saw in Hollin. He didn't compare it to the wolves
>>that attacked them. He didn't compare it to Gollum. He didn't compare it
>>to the Orcs and Trolls. He didn't compare it to the flying thing that
>>passed over them in Hollin. He didn't compare it to the Watcher in the
>>Water.
>>
>>He compared it to the Balrog. Why? It's not like the trip had been
>>uneventful up to that point.
>
> The Balrog was a different kind of evil. I think, in my opinion, that
>the Balrog was a greater evil than all them in that it was an ancient evil,
>more akin to the evil of Sauron and Morgoth and the Ringwraiths, rather than
>to orcs or trolls or wargs. It was of such an evil that it could not only be
>beheld, but also felt, somewhat like the Morgul knife, just less potent and
>concentrated.
That is reasonable. Tolkien himself suggests the Balrog is an unusual evil
in at least one of his letters. But they weren't discussing relative
evilness, or comparing levels of power. Gimli was reminded of the shadow
of the Balrog, and yet Frodo had been alerted to the presence of a Nazgul
by cues not available to the others.
> In sticking with my original post, it still has to do with viewpoints.
>Gimli saw a winged shape fly over them. When they saw the Balrog, it
>appeared to be a large, winged creature. They compared the shadow to what
>they saw. I don't debate that. What I'm saying is that they had just as much
>of an idea about what it was as we do. They don't know, as they don't have
>all the facts. They went on the same information as we go on when we read
>the book, which is contradictory and limited.
We actually have better information than Gimli and the others (except
Frodo) had. That is what I'm trying to point out. To "see" the shadowy
winged creature at the same level as Gimli, Legolas, Aragorn, et. al, you
cannot acknowledge the cues Frodo was given.
[lotsa snippage]
>>The dark shadow was AROUND the Balrog -- it was not really a shadow. It
>>was a darkness which Tolkien sometimes referred to as a shadow. There is
>>really no word in the English language for what it was. It can best be
>>described as the darkness surrounding a Balrog, but that's a phrase, not
>>a word.
>>
>>And the fact remains that Tolkien wrote the story a certain way: two
>>creatures of darkness with wings and emanating dread approach the Company,
>>and Gimli said that one reminded him of the other.
>>
>>Does that prove the Balrog had wings? No, but it confirms what the text
>>says in "The Bridge of Khazad-dum": that there were wings for the Company
>>to behold.
>
>Do you mean physical wings, or a wing-like shape that they saw? You seem to
>be saying that the Balrog might not have wings, but rather that the
>Fellowship might have seen a wing-like shape around the Balrog. You seem to
>be agreeing with what I have been saying.
What are "physical wings" where a Balrog is concerned? What are Balrog
wings made of? What is a Balrog made of? Fire came from its nostrils,
darkness emanated from it, its "mane" caught fire when it leaped over an
apparently volcanic fissure -- this was not a creature of flesh and blood,
feathers and down.
The wings the Fellowship saw were "wings" as much as wings on a bird or on
a wooden replica of a bird are wings. That doesn't mean they were bird
wings, wooden replica wings, bat wings, fruit-and-fiber wings, or anything
other than "Balrog wings", whatever those may be.
The Fellowship saw two winged creatures. Both approached them in darkened
situations and appeared to be "shadowy"; both emanated fear (well, the
Nazgul on the winged steed emanated fear). The basis for comparison is
there. Otherwise, Gimli's statement doesn't fit. Why compare a Balrog to
an Uruk? Why compare Theoden's Riders of Rohan to the Shirrifs of the
Shire?
The appearance was similar enough for Gimli to make the comparison. Frodo
had to dispel any illusions about whether THE Balrog (which they did not
know was dead) or A Balrog was coming up from the south.
THAT is an interpretation (for the sake of those who aren't sure but don't
know they aren't sure of what an interpretation is).
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote in message <74v012$9oq$1...@camel21.mindspring.com>...
>>What are "physical wings" where a Balrog is concerned? What are Balrog
>>wings made of? What is a Balrog made of? Fire came from its nostrils,
>>darkness emanated from it, its "mane" caught fire when it leaped over an
>>apparently volcanic fissure -- this was not a creature of flesh and blood,
>>feathers and down.
>>
>>The wings the Fellowship saw were "wings" as much as wings on a bird or on
>>a wooden replica of a bird are wings. That doesn't mean they were bird
>>wings, wooden replica wings, bat wings, fruit-and-fiber wings, or anything
>>other than "Balrog wings", whatever those may be.
>
>This sheds new light on the wings/no wings debate for me. I always felt that
>the "wingers", if you will, thought the Balrog had physical wings. I can
>visualize wings made of shadow, or fire, or any other substance related to a
>Balrog. I just can't visualize physical wings.
They are "physical" wings if the "shadow" is a physical emanation, or they
are "physical" wings if they are separate from the "shadow", or they may
not be "physical" wings regardless of what the "shadow" is. They are wings
because Tolkien says they are wings. There's nothing else to call them.
The wings are simply a part of the form of the Balrog.
What is the "physical" makeup of a Balrog? Is its entire form "corporeal"
in the same way? What if the "shadow" was some sort of haze which could
solidify? What if it was a tremendous cloud of hair? What if it was the
airborn equivalent of an octopus' ink cloud (yet subject to the willful
control of the Balrog, as an appendage such as an arm or leg would be)?
>>The Fellowship saw two winged creatures. Both approached them in darkened
>>situations and appeared to be "shadowy"; both emanated fear (well, the
>>Nazgul on the winged steed emanated fear). The basis for comparison is
>>there. Otherwise, Gimli's statement doesn't fit. Why compare a Balrog to
>>an Uruk? Why compare Theoden's Riders of Rohan to the Shirrifs of the
>>Shire?
>>
>>The appearance was similar enough for Gimli to make the comparison. Frodo
>>had to dispel any illusions about whether THE Balrog (which they did not
>>know was dead) or A Balrog was coming up from the south.
>
>The shape is similar. And, as I said above, I was arguing with the physical
>wings theory, as opposed to the wing theory in general. But, if the wings
>were so ethereal and substanceless that they could be a shadow, how could
>Gimli tell if they were wings or not?
Wings are wings. If you make a snow angel, isn't it defined as such by the
shape you create? i.e., the impressions you make in the snow by whipping
your arms "up" and "down" look like wings, and that is why it's called a
snow angel, right? Gimli knew they were wings by the shape of them -- why
else would Tolkien call them "wings"?
O'Neill Quigley
Fair dues to you for not Troll Patrolling the headers. It actually lends
you credence you know, Michael.
Exiting ------------------------------->
Comments to me via e-mail if you would.
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote in article
<74rffi$2i8$4...@camel15.mindspring.com>...
> All of my articles are archived.
> You're wrong, as usual, and on many points. But in this case you weren't
Tony Durran
:)