Balrogs
Michael Martinez
smj...@my-dejanews.com says...
>
>> ) Try reading the books more and looking for fights less, okay?
>
>Yes. Please do.
In case it wasn't clear the first time, that request was intended solely for
you, as you appear to be lecturing us on Tolkien without bothering to consult
the texts.
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
//\\ <http://www.xenite.org/index.htm>
// \\ENITE.org...............................................
Michael Martinez
>whether
>> ) one should have flown out of the chasm into which it dragged Gandalf.
>
>Would a bird fall into crevice?
Unless they've learned to float without flapping their wings, then given
circumstances similar to the scene in THE LORD OF THE RINGS where Gandalf breaks
the bridge out from under the Balrog, if a nasty ole wizard struck a bridge out
from under a little birdy wordy, and the crevice or chasm beneath the birdy
wordy were too narrow for it to flap its wings and fly, or the birdy wordy want
to use its many-pronged whip to lash out at the nasty wizard and draw it down
into the chasm so that it could envelop him with its fire, then, yes, it would
fall into the crevice.
But that's all purely hypothetical, isn't it?
>> ) >abyss was not Khazad-Dum. It is not stating explicitly if the Balrog
>> ) >knew the way back up, or, running from Gandalf, he blindly stumbled
>> ) >onto it.
>> )
>> ) Oh, of course. The word "blindly" is secretly embedded between the
>> ) last two sentences. How stupid of all of us to have missed that
>> ) through all these years.
>
>You seem to have a problem parsing conjunctions.
No, but you have demonstrated a reading comprehension problem.
>"X or blindly Y" is not equivalent to "blinding Y". I did not state that the
>Balrog did not know what was under Moria, merely that it was not explicitly
>stated that it was.
Agreed. That is what you stated. Of course, the poor Balrog, having been found
under Moria, and having explored all its secret ways, couldn't possibly have
explored any of the places beneath Moria in the more than 1,000 years since it
had been freed. Therefore we should just blow away bandwidth arguing over
whether the Balrog got lost when it fell into the chasm. Right?
>Claiming that the Balrog did indeed know is unsupported interpretation.
Nope. If there were any contrary evidence it would have been cited by now. No
one has managed to do that in all these years.
>> ) Never mind the fact that Gandalf doesn't say the Balrog was lost. Never
>
>Doesn't say the Balrog knew where it was. Either. Choosing one alternative
>is interpretation. I did not interpreted, I presented alternatives.
What you presented was nonsense, and an attempt to derail the discussion. Does
the text say the Balrog had spent time down there? Yes. Does the text say it
was lost? No. If the text doesn't say it, then there is no point in suggesting
something as "an alternative". It's not an alternative -- it's outside the text
and the scope of the discussion.
I don't care to get into what you think are alternatives to Tolkien's work.
>>) in the dark. Never mind the fact that Gandalf doesn't express any doubt or
>> ) wonder about the Balrog's ability to find its way back to Khazad-dum, even
>> ) though it was his only hope.
>
>Doesn't say Gandalf was expecting a way out either. It was an unplanned
>detour, and it does sound like his primary concern was immediate survival,
>"Ever he clutched at me, and ever I hewed him,..."
Sounds more like his primary concern was keeping the Balrog away from the Ring,
but, hey, that's just MY interpretation.
>> ) You would have us believe you know the story better than Tolkien.
>
>What? And displace you? Sacriledge.
Where have I ever claimed to know the story better than Tolkien? At least I do
him the courtesy of citing him -- if you did the same you would have less reason
to resort to snide remarks and singularly extrapolative ruminations.
>> ) Balrogs were destroyed, save some few that fled and hid themselves in
>> ) caverns inaccessible at the roots of the earth...."
>
>Our particular pet Balrog flew from the ruin of Angband. Doesn't
>explicitly said he fought and ran or just ran. (That's another OR,
>Micheal. Do try to parse it correctly.)
You seem to be totally incapable of picking up a book and reading it. Why is
that? Do you really enjoy having your ignorance exposed on Usenet? You don't
know what you are talking about. At least take the time to do a little
homework. I promise you, it won't break your fingers to pick up a book and
check your "facts" before you start posting them.
Go back and reread the texts:
App. A III:
"The Dwarves delved deep at that time ... Thus they roused from sleep
a thing of terror that, flying from Thangorodrim, had lain hidden at
the foundations of the earth since the coming of the Host of the West:
a Balrog of Morgoth. Durin was slain by it, and in the year after Nain
I, his son; and then the glory of Moria passed, and its people were
destroyed or fled far away."
In THE LOST ROAD AND OTHER WRITINGS Christopher writes the following
concerning section 16 of "The Conclusion of the *Quenta Silmarillion*":
"$16 In my view there is no question that the words (not in Q)
'save some few [Balrogs] that fled and hid themselves in caverns
inaccessible at the roots of the earth' preceded by a good while
the Balrog of Moria (there is in any case evidence that a Balrog
was not my father's original conception of Gandalf's adversary
on the Bridge of Khazad-dum). It was, I believe, the idea --
first appearing here -- that some Balrogs had survived the ancient
world in the deep places of Middle-earth that led to the Balrog
of Moria. In this connection a letter of my father's written
in April 1954 (LETTERS no. 144, p. 180) is interesting:
"[The Balrogs] wete supposed to have been all destroyed
in the overthrow of Thangorodrim...But it is here found...
that one had survived and taken refuge under the mountains
of Hithaeglin [*sic*]."
Tolkien described him as a survivor, but I suppose you'll go on to argue with
him on this point, too, won't you?
!**?#!#$
> ) >
> ) >Yes. Please do.
> )
> ) In case it wasn't clear the first time, that request was intended solely for
> ) you, as you appear to be lecturing us on Tolkien without bothering to
consult
> ) the texts.
And in case it was clear to you, why don't you look for fights less? Or do
you not willing to finish what you start?
--
They wait apart in waning day, | I don't use no smilies.
the flare of crimson fades to gray. | smj...@my-dejanews.com
They rest their violence, the rest is silence.| www.geocities.com
Their empty years are ash and clay. | /SoHo/Studios/5079/index.html
!**?#!#$
> )
> ) Unless they've learned to float without flapping their wings, then given
Why wouldn't they flap their wings? Are you going around tying down bird
wings, cutting their tendons? Are do you just do that here?
> ) Agreed. That is what you stated. Of course, the poor Balrog, having
been found
> ) under Moria, and having explored all its secret ways, couldn't possibly have
> ) explored any of the places beneath Moria in the more than 1,000 years
since it
> ) had been freed. Therefore we should just blow away bandwidth arguing over
> ) whether the Balrog got lost when it fell into the chasm. Right?
Gee, for somebody who's so quick and nasty about pointing out other
people's "interpretations", you sure seeming forgiving about your own.
Doesn't say he explored any place under Moria. Doesn't describe his route
after he was awakenned. Just your interpretation.
> ) Nope. If there were any contrary evidence it would have been cited by
now.
Give me contrary evidence dwarves lived above ground. Sorry, must be
pedantic or you'll have another pissy fit. Give me contrary evidence
dwarves established permanent residences above the surface, with no living
rock forming a substantial portion of the walls and roofs of such
habitation.
Give me contrary evidence Gandalf ever went south of the Harnen.
> ) What you presented was nonsense, and an attempt to derail the discussion.
This is not your property. This not your classroom. You do not decide what
I may or may not present.
> ) was lost? No. If the text doesn't say it, then there is no point in
The text doesn't say the balrog knew either. If the text doesn't say it,....
> ) Sounds more like his primary concern was keeping the Balrog away from
the Ring,
Uh, right. After falling into the abyss, it is obvious that's Gandalf's
primary concern, was "now how do I keep this Balrog from running out the
Dimrill Gate and past Lorien toward Gondor."
> ) to resort to snide remarks and singularly extrapolative ruminations.
Live with it, Disney boy.
There's an old saying: Live and let live. Leave me alone and I'll leave
you alone.
> ) a thing of terror that, flying from Thangorodrim, had lain hidden at
> ) the foundations of the earth since the coming of the Host of the West:
Yea. It ran away. Or flapped away. Doesn't say if he fought first. That's
your interpretation.
> ) Tolkien described him as a survivor, but I suppose you'll go on to argue
Some people survive by running away without fighting. When the Balrog fell
forward I really don't know if it lashed out in fear and desperation or if
it really thought it could kill Gandalf. You apparently do, but since you
only go by what is written, I wish I could have access to those
unpublished stories. I sure everybody else would also like access to them.
Brian E. Clark
<Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
> > Claiming that the Balrog did indeed know is unsupported
> > interpretation.
>
> Nope. If there were any contrary evidence it would have been
> cited by now. No one has managed to do that in all these years.
I do not think your intrepretation is "unsupported," because I
think it follows from reasonable assumptions. Still, it is an
interpretation, based on non-textual suppositions, and that fact
should not be dismissed. So imagine my surprise in noticing your
implicit dismissal of it. :)
Perhaps no contrary evidence has been found. What of it? No
supporting textual evidence has ever been offered, either.
Rather, you have presented a supporting argument. You cannot
provide direct evidence because Tolkien neither stated nor
implied that the Balrog knew his way. You deduced that Balrog
knew how to thread his way through the subMorian strata, as this
was the idea that fitted the text most naturally. But it is not
to be found in the text itself.
Quite apart from the legitimate inferences, we can easily dismiss
such misfires as the following: "Never mind the fact that Gandalf
doesn't say the Balrog was lost. Never mind the fact that
Gandalf doesn't say anything about the Balrog stumbling around in
the dark..." and so forth. Perhaps you noticed that Gandalf
didn't deny that a luminous bonobo chimp led the Balrog through
the caves? Does that does not lend the idea any validity?
Likewise, Gandalf's failing to say that the Balrog did not know
his way cannot substantiate the idea the Balrog did know his way,
and vice versa. More generally, your personal notions about what
Tolkien would have written, had he meant to convey a certain
idea, do not form strong support for any idea that lies external
to the text. You are not he.
Thus the following rings with deafening irony:
> Does the text say the Balrog had spent time down there? Yes.
> Does the text say it was lost? No. If the text doesn't say it,
> then there is no point in suggesting something as "an alternative".
> It's not an alternative -- it's outside the text and the scope of
> the discussion.
Does the text say the Balrog knew his way? No. Follow your own
advice here. You insist that one person's extra-textual notion
cannot be an alternative precisely because it's outside the text.
Why isn't your own extra-textual notion subject to that filter?
> I don't care to get into what you think are alternatives to
> Tolkien's work.
Here you blatantly conflate Martinez with Tolkien. Tolkien did
not address the point in question, and both positions discussed
are alternatives (though I find the "he knew" alternative far
more likely). It would seem that assailing Martinez's opinion now
amounts to assailing Tolkien's work. Surely you can do without
this conceit? ;-)
--
Brian E. Clark
brian<at>telerama<dot>com
____________________________________________________
Il faut aller voir.
Michael Martinez
smj...@my-dejanews.com says...
>And in case it was clear to you, why don't you look for fights less? Or do
>you not willing to finish what you start?
You're the only person who started this little go-round -- if you think you're
fooling anyone into believing otherwise, well, you've already demonstrated how
thoroughly you check your facts. I'll let your record speak for itself.
O'Neill Quigley
"Birdy wordy"sounds like an educated parrot......
Mind you, if the cap fits......
O'Neill Quigley
argument. Kiss and make up.
!**?#!#$
> ) argument. Kiss and make up.
I already tried.
!**?#!#$
You mean like,
> Subject: Re: Elfs and Dwarfs: why do they hate each other?
> Date: 5 Aug 1998 00:00:00 GMT
> From: smj...@my-dejanews.com (!**?#!#$)
> Organization: Little Shop of Hours
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
> References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12
>
>
>
>
> Harrumph.
> Since I started this....
> Micheal brings a great deal of learning and intelligence to the
> discussion, I have no problem with his enjoyment is slightly different
> than mine. I just don't need someone waiting in the shadows to pounce on
> me.
> --
> They wait apart in waning day, | I don't use no smilies.
> the flare of crimson fades to gray. | smj...@my-dejanews.com
> They rest their violence, the rest is silence.| www.geocities.com
> Their empty years are ash and clay. | /SoHo/Studios/5079/index.html
You're right: I was wrong to assume you would leave aside your arrogance.
Give what you want to receive.
O'Neill Quigley
Well, you can only try, I s'pose.
Michael Martinez
>> )
>> ) Unless they've learned to float without flapping their wings, then given
>
>Why wouldn't they flap their wings?
Because there ain't no room. If we're going to talk about birds in a balrog
passage, we have to make the birds' circumstances similar to the balrog's. It's
that simple.
>> ) Agreed. That is what you stated. Of course, the poor Balrog, having
>> ) been found under Moria, and having explored all its secret ways,
>> ) couldn't possibly have explored any of the places beneath Moria in
>> ) the more than 1,000 years since it had been freed. Therefore we
>> ) should just blow away bandwidth arguing over whether the Balrog got
>> ) lost when it fell into the chasm. Right?
>
>Gee, for somebody who's so quick and nasty about pointing out other
>people's "interpretations", you sure seeming forgiving about your own.
Fine. We'll INTERPRET the passage this way, with your approval, of course: The
Balrog, having been under Moria, having controlled Moria and its passages for
over a thousand years, had absolutely no clue about the chasm in the Second Hall
and therefore went blindly to its doom as a pure matter of plot device.
>Doesn't say he explored any place under Moria. Doesn't describe his route
>after he was awakenned. Just your interpretation.
The book says he was FOUND UNDER MORIA. How many times are you going to insist
that Tolkien is wrong on a point? And since I didn't offer any routes after he
was awakened, what exactly is "just my interpretation"?
Never mind. This argument is obviously beyond you.
>> ) Nope. If there were any contrary evidence it would have been cited by
>> )now.
>
>Give me contrary evidence dwarves lived above ground. Sorry, must be
>pedantic or you'll have another pissy fit.
"pissy fit". Oooo! That cut REALLY deep. That was SO SMART OF YOU.
>Give me contrary evidence dwarves established permanent residences
>above the surface, with no living rock forming a substantial portion
>of the walls and roofs of such habitation.
So, are you asking for evidence that they did this? Or that they didn't do it?
I can show that Dwarves both lived above ground and below ground. On which
point would you like to argue with the author?
BTW -- you can have at least five days to formulate your argument. I'll be
offline.
>Give me contrary evidence Gandalf ever went south of the Harnen.
Show us where the book says he didn't.
>> ) What you presented was nonsense, and an attempt to derail the discussion.
>
>This is not your property. This not your classroom. You do not decide what
>I may or may not present.
Be a good boy for a change and stop attempting to derail the discussion.
>> ) was lost? No. If the text doesn't say it, then there is no point in
>
>The text doesn't say the balrog knew either. If the text doesn't say it,....
Ah, so that's what it comes down to. Does the text say the balrog knew all the
ways of Moria or not? Or are you going to argue that the chasm was not part of
Moria? You have five days to worm your way out of your trap....
>> ) Sounds more like his primary concern was keeping the Balrog away from
>> ) the Ring,
>
>Uh, right. After falling into the abyss, it is obvious that's Gandalf's
>primary concern, was "now how do I keep this Balrog from running out the
>Dimrill Gate and past Lorien toward Gondor."
Really? I didn't see that in the book. However, Gandalf could have just tried
to get away from the Balrog once he'd gotten back to Moria. Funny how he chased
the blasted thing all the way to the top of the mountain. Must have been
because he was so impressed that it could find its way around a mountain lair
about which it had absolutely no clue.
Gandalf probably was asking it to autograph his "Number 1 Lost Balrog Fan"
T-shirt, don't you think?
>> ) to resort to snide remarks and singularly extrapolative ruminations.
>
>Live with it, Disney boy.
Hey, a compliment. Thank you! :)
>There's an old saying: Live and let live. Leave me alone and I'll leave
>you alone.
As long as I let you start anything, you mean, right? Try abiding by that
philosophy yourself.
Personally, I don't mind if people "don't leave me alone" -- I just object to
net abuse (such as flaming and trolling).
>> ) a thing of terror that, flying from Thangorodrim, had lain hidden at
>> ) the foundations of the earth since the coming of the Host of the West:
>
>Yea. It ran away. Or flapped away. Doesn't say if he fought first. That's
>your interpretation.
No, that's in the book. You'd understand that if you would just bother to read
it for a change. Look at THE SILMARILLIOn.
>> ) Tolkien described him as a survivor, but I suppose you'll go on to argue
>
>Some people survive by running away without fighting.
Some people survive by ignoring reality, too.
>When the Balrog fell forward I really don't know if it lashed out in fear
>and desperation or if it really thought it could kill Gandalf. You
>apparently do, but since you only go by what is written, I wish I
>could have access to those unpublished stories.
Look, if your unpublished stories aren't satisfactory for you, don't waste any
time asking me to make some up for you. I prefer what Tolkien wrote.
>I sure everybody else would also like access to them.
I doubt that. There are plenty of people who, like you, make stuff up as they go
along. Most of them, however, aren't like you in other respects.
Michael Martinez
smj...@my-dejanews.com says...
>> Since I started this....
>> Micheal brings a great deal of learning and intelligence to the
>> discussion, I have no problem with his enjoyment is slightly different
>> than mine. I just don't need someone waiting in the shadows to pounce on
>> me.
>
You who presume to ignore the books and lecture us about what you imagine to be
in them speak to me of arrogance? That is incredibly laughable. I have cited
Tolkien and you have manufactured Tolkien -- which of us is the problem here?
And I note that in your message you tossed in the completely uncalled for "I
just don't need someone waiting in the shadows to pounce on me". ALL of the
pouncing has been from you.
>Give what you want to receive.
I gave fair, honest, and accurate citations. I did not resort to snide remarks
and insults in return as you did, until you did.
I give exactly what I want to receive -- you have never offered it, however.
Instead of provoking fights with your insinuations, try being a reasonable and
fair-minded contributing member of these news groups. You so far have failed to
do so. If you don't understand how to get along with people, I'll be glad to
point you to appropriate FAQs. And spare us the lectures about how you've been
around since the forgoil goil days. You're behavior doesn't indicate you know
how to conduct yourself in a Usenet discussion.
If you're going to go head-to-head with me, keep your insults to yourself, keep
your imaginary texts to yourself, and keep your pouting to yourself. Just talk
text. If you don't want to do that or are incapable of doing it, then don't
followup to me, don't mention me, and don't pretend I'm waiting to pounce on
you.
You don't rate that highly in my book, and it's extremely arrogant of you to
suggest you might ever.
Michael Martinez
>
>> I already tried.
>
>Well, you can only try, I s'pose.
<sigh>
Yeah. If only he really would try.
Oh well. He's not the first troll and won't be the last in these groups, I'm
sure.
Michael Martinez
br...@real.address.in.sig says...
>
><soli...@gamewood.net> wrote:
>
>> 3) The hobbits' room at the Prancing Pony was ransacked by
>> the Black Riders (No, by Bill Ferny & Co, at the Ringwraiths'
>> behest)
>
>Why do you say this? Where does the text talk about the
>Ringwraith's request?
I believe that's stated in "The Hunt for the Ring" in UNFINISHED TALES. I'm at
work and cannot check the books, but if you stop to think about it, Tolkien
would have had a real problem on his hands if the Nazgul, who could sense the
Ring, had invaded the Inn and not been drawn to the correct room.
O'Neill Quigley
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote in article
<6sjndp$o...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> In article <01bdd65a$6e259780$85867dc2@default>, "O'Neill says...
> >
> >> I already tried.
> >
> >Well, you can only try, I s'pose.
>
> <sigh>
>
> Yeah. If only he really would try.
>
> Oh well. He's not the first troll and won't be the last in these groups,
I'm
> sure.
>
Grimgard
>provide direct evidence because Tolkien neither stated nor
>implied that the Balrog knew his way. You deduced that Balrog
>knew how to thread his way through the subMorian strata,
From The Two Towers, in the chapter The White Rider: "Now I have walked there,
but I will bring no report to darken the light of day. In that despair my
enemy was my only hope, and I pursued him, clutching at his heel. Thus he
brought me back at last to the secret ways of Khazad-dum: too well he knew them
all. Ever up now we went, until we came to the Endless Stair."
Grimgard
for sale: parachute, used once, never opened. small stain.
Joe Bader
newsgroup, or any others for that matter, how to conduct oneself in
proper Usenet discussion.
And if, as you say: "I give exactly what I want to receive" is true,
are the gentle readers of this group to take this to mean that they may
cancel your posts at whim?
Just wondering . . .
In message <6sjnb8$g...@drn.newsguy.com> - Michael Martinez
<Mic...@xenite.org> writes:
<<snip>>
:>I give exactly what I want to receive --
:>you have never offered it, however.
:>Instead of provoking fights with your
:>insinuations, try being a reasonable and
:>fair-minded contributing member of
:>these news groups. You so far have failed to
:>do so. If you don't understand how
:>to get along with people, I'll be glad to
:>point you to appropriate FAQs. And
:>spare us the lectures about how you've been
:>around since the forgoil goil days.
:>You're behavior doesn't indicate you know
:>how to conduct yourself in a Usenet discussion.
<<snip>>
Joe Bader
j...@primary.net
!**?#!#$
> ) >> )
> ) >> ) Unless they've learned to float without flapping their wings,
then given
> ) >Why wouldn't they flap their wings?
> )
> ) Because there ain't no room. If we're going to talk about birds in a balrog
You're assuming they permitted themselves to fall far enough to be stuck.
I'm not accepting your assumption. Live with it. Despite what you think,
this is not a moderated group, nor is it your balliwick: you can't expect
others to accept your assumption.
> ) Fine. We'll INTERPRET the passage this way, with your approval, of course:
I'm saving this.
Expect to see it thrown back in your face the next time you admonish
others not to make interpretation.
> ) and therefore went blindly to its doom as a pure matter of plot device.
You shouldn't've ignored all the blither about evolution. Blind chance can
be successful.
> ) The book says he was FOUND UNDER MORIA. How many times are you going
to insist
> ) that Tolkien is wrong on a point? And since I didn't offer any routes
after he
> ) was awakened, what exactly is "just my interpretation"?
If a search&rescue team finds a person in a forest and brings them out,
does that mean that person knows their away around the forest? You stated
the Balrog knew all the ways below Moria. That's interpretation.
> ) >This is not your property. This not your classroom. You do not decide what
> ) >I may or may not present.
> )
> ) Be a good boy for a change and stop attempting to derail the discussion.
That, child, is the discussion. As long as you wait in the shadows to
pounce on anything I write, I will be waiting for you.
That is the totality of my side of the discussion.
> ) Ah, so that's what it comes down to. Does the text say the balrog
knew all the
> ) ways of Moria or not? Or are you going to argue that the chasm was
not part
I have always been willing to accept other people's interpretation. That,
for me, is the primary purpose of being here, to find new ways to look at
the stories. Not to pounce on other people.
I've made an exception for you.
> ) >> ) Sounds more like his primary concern was keeping the Balrog away from
> ) >> ) the Ring,
> )
> ) Really? I didn't see that in the book. However, Gandalf could have just
Gotcha again. You didn't see that in the book, so how can you be sure it
was his primary concern. More unsupported interpretation.
I guess Micheal's interpretations are unquestionable. Too bad you don't
have the common courtesy to let others express their interpretation.
> ) As long as I let you start anything, you mean, right? Try abiding by that
> ) philosophy yourself.
Micheal, for many years, I have.
> ) it for a change. Look at THE SILMARILLIOn.
Been there, done that. Which battle did this Balrog fight in before Moria?
We know it escaped the ruin. Did it try to prevent the ruin. Go ahead,
show me where it says this specific Balrog fought against the Host of
Valinor.
> ) Look, if your unpublished stories aren't satisfactory for you, don't
waste any
> ) time asking me to make some up for you. I prefer what Tolkien wrote.
Yeah, well you seem to see things he wrote nobody can see.
!**?#!#$
> ) just don't need someone waiting in the shadows to pounce on me". ALL of the
> ) pouncing has been from you.
Go back to deja-news, disney boy. You jumped out with a silly semantic
quibble that dwarves camped aboveground that was proof that they did not
_live_ underground. I told you to leave me alone. You didn't. Instead you
make snide remarks.
Killfile if you want. Like I give a damn.
> ) I gave fair, honest, and accurate citations. I did not resort to snide
Crap. You dress up your interpretation with a few quotes and then expect
everybody else to suck up to you.
> ) I give exactly what I want to receive -- you have never offered it,
however.
> ) Instead of provoking fights with your insinuations, try being a
reasonable and
> ) fair-minded contributing member of these news groups. You so far have
failed to
Do you remember smr...@netcom.com? I've watch your crap for many years and
ignored it because you ignored me. Go back to ignoring me and I will go
back to ignoring you. Like I keep telling you, your choice.
And look around. With whom am I provoking fights except you? I realise you
like to think of yourself as the totality of the newsgroup, but that ain't
so.
Live with it, disney boy.
> ) If you're going to go head-to-head with me, keep your insults to yourself,
Child, I'm getting closer to death than birth. I'm old enough to call crap
crap. I don't need my mother's permission.
!**?#!#$
> ) >
> ) >Well, you can only try, I s'pose.
> )
> ) <sigh>
> )
> ) Yeah. If only he really would try.
> )
> ) Oh well. He's not the first troll and won't be the last in these
groups, I'm
> ) sure.
Sigh, if only you knew what a troll was, child.
Let me repeat it one more time: ignore me and I'll ignore you. Harping
about trapdoors because you don't know what a programmer means by trapdoor
is not ignoring me.
If I'm adding nothing to the discussion, why even bother responding? It's
not your personal newsgroup. If you want that, why not have a call for
discussion and vote for rec.arts.books.tolkien.micheals.group.moderated.
I'm sure it will be full of lively discussions.
!**?#!#$
> ) >provide direct evidence because Tolkien neither stated nor
> ) >implied that the Balrog knew his way. You deduced that Balrog
> ) >knew how to thread his way through the subMorian strata,
> ) but I will bring no report to darken the light of day. In that despair my
> ) enemy was my only hope, and I pursued him, clutching at his heel. Thus he
> ) brought me back at last to the secret ways of Khazad-dum: too well he knew
English is wonderfully ambiguous. This paragraph can be parsed that "too
well he knew..." applies everything under the mountains, or just to the
secret ways of Khazad-dum. It's ambiguous. (Another ambiguity is that
Sauron held the Nine: to hold does not necessarily mean physical
possession.)
Micheal seizes on whatever parse suits his fancy and then uses that to
browbeat others into submission. He declares he is not interpretting, he
using the literal text. Anybody who disagrees is interpretting and he
harasses them, usually calling their responses trolls.
If you tell me you want to parse the modifier to apply to entire
paragraph, I won't fight you over it, because, unlike Micheal, you haven't
tried some clever snipping and parsing to prove you know better than
anyone else.
In the end, when I'm reading the books, it's not Johnny's story or
Micheal's story or your story: it's my story. I can see and think and
interpret whatever I please. And some people think it would be nice if
such thoughts and feelings could be shared.
Mike Scott Rohan
of thing. Small Orcs would be better.
--
mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk
Graham Lockwood
Grimgard wrote in message
<199809022124...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>> You cannot
>>provide direct evidence because Tolkien neither stated nor
>
there,
>all. Ever up now we went, until we came to the Endless Stair."
>
>Grimgard
>for sale: parachute, used once, never opened. small stain.
To me, that passage says that the balrog knew the passages of Moria "too
well", implying that he might know the passages below Moria "not so well",
but that he knew them well enough to get back to his cozy Kasad-dum. The
passage isn't very clear and is, in addition, only Gandalf's personal
interpretation. Gandalf may know a lot of stuff but I don't think he knows
what this balrog has been doing in his spare time for the past thousand
years and I don't think anybody else does either. I don't even think
Tolkien really knew whether or not the balrog knew every nook and cranny in
the Misty Mountains forwards and backwards like the back of his hand.
||// // - ------===**O**===------- - || //
|// // Graham Lockwood ||//
(/ // gsl...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu |//
||// (/)
|// Quantum Mechanics //|
(/ The dreams stuff is made of //||
|| - -------====**O**====------- - // ||
Jouni Karhu
>> ) >> ) >Would a bird fall into crevice?
>> ) >> )
>> ) >> ) Unless they've learned to float without flapping their wings,
>then given
>> ) >Why wouldn't they flap their wings?
>> )
>> ) Because there ain't no room. If we're going to talk about birds in a balrog
>
>You're assuming they permitted themselves to fall far enough to be stuck.
>I'm not accepting your assumption. Live with it. Despite what you think,
>this is not a moderated group, nor is it your balliwick: you can't expect
>others to accept your assumption.
Think not of sparrows when you think of flying; think of swans, or
even bigger birds yet. And even those bigger birds have hollow bones,
which the balrogs certainly do not have. To get enough air under its
wings, the balrog would most probably leap up, much like the bigger
birds do to get airborne. When the bridge collapsed under its feet
(quite unexpectedly), the balrog could not immediately produce enough
lift to hold its position. And then it was too late. The crevice was
too narrow for it to start gliding (its wings reached from one end of
the hall to the other), and something as massive as a balrog can not
hover like a hummingbird. So it fell, knowing that it will take it a
while to get back up, so it used its whip to take Gandalf with it.
The balrog had too big a wingspan to spiral in the crevice. Thus, it
could not fly up. The most it could do was probably slow the fall a
little by using its wings as a parachute.
Nothing to do with 'permitting' anything. Just simple physics.
--
'I have something to say! | 'The Immoral Immortal' \o JJ Karhu
It is better to burn out, | -=========================OxxxxxxxxxxxO
than to fade away!' | kur...@modeemi.cs.tut.fi /o
Mike Kew
>
>Think not of sparrows when you think of flying; think of swans, or
>even bigger birds yet. And even those bigger birds have hollow bones,
>which the balrogs certainly do not have.
Umm - you seem very certain of this... I don't recall anyone doing
a post-mortem on a Balrog?
>The balrog had too big a wingspan to spiral in the crevice. Thus, it
>could not fly up. The most it could do was probably slow the fall a
>little by using its wings as a parachute.
This seems reasonable to me.
--
Mike Kew
"Why don't we get together and charge through?"
(Please don't attribute the sig unless replying to the post - thanks.)
Megan Westerfield
> > ) >> ) Try reading the books more and looking for fights less, okay?
> > ) >Yes. Please do.
> > ) In case it wasn't clear the first time, that request was intended solely for
> > ) you, as you appear to be lecturing us on Tolkien without bothering to
> consult
> > ) the texts.
> And in case it was clear to you, why don't you look for fights less? Or do
> you not willing to finish what you start?
how 'bout we all just agree to back off and start with a new attitude?
just put down the baseball bats and act like adults? I know that with
a group of highly intelligent ppl there is going to be conflict. But
we do not have to succumb to our tempers.
*Rabbyt the Elf-Queen
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>spoon<><><><><><><><><>
"Oh nobly born, let not thy mind be distracted. "
_The_Tibetan_Book_of_the_Dead_
Jouni Karhu
>On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Jouni Karhu <kur...@modeemi.cs.tut.fi> wrote
>>
>>Think not of sparrows when you think of flying; think of swans, or
>>even bigger birds yet. And even those bigger birds have hollow bones,
>>which the balrogs certainly do not have.
>
>Umm - you seem very certain of this... I don't recall anyone doing
>a post-mortem on a Balrog?
Point taken. :) One should never make assertations even when the
matter seems 'certain' to oneself :)
But I still think it pretty damn unlikely . . .
Tenderfoot
>how 'bout we all just agree to back off and start with a new attitude?
>just put down the baseball bats and act like adults? I know that with
>a group of highly intelligent ppl there is going to be conflict. But
>we do not have to succumb to our tempers.
Hear the Queen!
Tenderfoot
Graham Lockwood
>On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Jouni Karhu <kur...@modeemi.cs.tut.fi> wrote
>>
>>Think not of sparrows when you think of flying; think of swans, or
>>even bigger birds yet. And even those bigger birds have hollow bones,
>>which the balrogs certainly do not have.
>
>Umm - you seem very certain of this... I don't recall anyone doing
>a post-mortem on a Balrog?
As I've said elsewhere, Tolkien wasn't big on scientific accuracy. There
has never been anything on earth with hollow bones that was anything like
the size of a balrog. As animals get bigger, their mass increases four
times as fast as their length so bones have to get really big and strong.
All of the really big birds, both extinct and extant, were flightless and
all of the flightless birds had solid bones. From a biological standpoint,
nothing the size of a balrog could possibly fly in Earth's gravity. Of
course, neither can dragons but that's never stopped anybody. It's that
whole "Secondary Belief" thing :-)
!**?#!#$
> ) whole "Secondary Belief" thing :-)
Dragons were gasbags. They spewed acid on calcium carbonate and collected
the resulting hydrogen in their bodies until they reached neutral
bouyance. Then small wing muscles would be enough to change altitude and
maneuver. They burped hydrogen and hydrochloric acid which ignited on
contact with oxygen.
It's almost as if you don't believe dragons really existed.....
Jay Random
>
> > ) course, neither can dragons but that's never stopped anybody. It's that
> > ) whole "Secondary Belief" thing :-)
>
> Dragons were gasbags. They spewed acid on calcium carbonate and collected
> the resulting hydrogen in their bodies until they reached neutral
> bouyance. Then small wing muscles would be enough to change altitude and
> maneuver. They burped hydrogen and hydrochloric acid which ignited on
> contact with oxygen.
>
> It's almost as if you don't believe dragons really existed.....
I recall an enormously entertaining article on the physiology of dragons
in _Scientific American_. (No, I can't recall whether it was an April
issue.) The upshot: dragons may just be physically possible, but it's
difficult to see the survival value of evolving into a flying bomb.
Ognjen Mlinar
Tenderfoot wrote:
Right on!! Hail to the Queen! I'll cancel already written posting on this
matter as a token of my good will!!
>
>
> Tenderfoot
--
'Organ transplants are best left to the professionals'
-Bart Simpson's blackboard quotation-
Mike Kew
>!**?#!#$ wrote:
>>
>> Dragons were gasbags. They spewed acid on calcium carbonate and collected
>> the resulting hydrogen in their bodies until they reached neutral
>> bouyance. Then small wing muscles would be enough to change altitude and
>> maneuver. They burped hydrogen and hydrochloric acid which ignited on
>> contact with oxygen.
>>
>> It's almost as if you don't believe dragons really existed.....
>
>I recall an enormously entertaining article on the physiology of dragons
>in _Scientific American_. (No, I can't recall whether it was an April
>issue.) The upshot: dragons may just be physically possible, but it's
>difficult to see the survival value of evolving into a flying bomb.
Interesting - that's precisely how Terry Pratchett's dragons have
been working for several years now. As you say, they're
evolutionarily a bit tricky, 'cos they tend to explode when they
get angry (or sneeze, or eat something ill-advised, or...). He
also mentions how the BIG dragons fly using thermals from the
fires they start on the ground.
--
Mike Kew
"I marvel to see one here now in the midst of sorrow and war."
Grimgard
>has never been anything on earth with hollow bones that was anything like
>the size of a balrog. As animals get bigger, their mass increases four
>times as fast as their length so bones have to get really big and strong.
>All of the really big birds, both extinct and extant, were flightless and
>all of the flightless birds had solid bones. From a biological standpoint,
>nothing the size of a balrog could possibly fly in Earth's gravity. Of
>
>
What about pterodactyls?
Graham Lockwood
!**?#!#$ wrote in message ...
>> ) course, neither can dragons but that's never stopped anybody. It's
that
>> ) whole "Secondary Belief" thing :-)
>
>Dragons were gasbags. They spewed acid on calcium carbonate and collected
>the resulting hydrogen in their bodies until they reached neutral
>bouyance. Then small wing muscles would be enough to change altitude and
>maneuver. They burped hydrogen and hydrochloric acid which ignited on
>contact with oxygen.
I seem to recall that being the explanation in "Flight of Dragons", a very
cool movie, but that still wouldn't explain it. If you've ever seen a blimp
(even an old blimp that used hydrogen), it takes a very big "gasbag" to
support a puny little gondola so unless you want to say that dragon's had
entire hollow bodies filled with hydrogen, they wouldn't be able to float.
>It's almost as if you don't believe dragons really existed.....
Sure I do... when I'm reading an author who has successfully created
secondary belief.
Graham Lockwood
Grimgard wrote in message
<199809051430...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>As I've said elsewhere, Tolkien wasn't big on scientific accuracy. There
>>has never been anything on earth with hollow bones that was anything like
>>the size of a balrog. As animals get bigger, their mass increases four
>>times as fast as their length so bones have to get really big and strong.
>>All of the really big birds, both extinct and extant, were flightless and
>>all of the flightless birds had solid bones. From a biological
standpoint,
>>nothing the size of a balrog could possibly fly in Earth's gravity. Of
>>
>>
>
Pterodactyls were a kind of pterosaur and a small kind at that.
Pterosaurs are the big group of flying reptiles. The biggest one we've
found is Quetzalcoatlus with a wingspan the size of a small manned airplane
but his actual body (excluding the wings) was about the size of a turkey.
His wings were almost entirely skin and hollow bones. I see the balrog as
being a little more massive then a turkey. If something the size of, say, a
person were to have hollow bones, they could probably get away with it but
would get broken bones much more often than people with solid bones. When
you start getting up to something the size of a horse, it would think it
would have trouble just walking around without breaking its legs. Imagine a
horse like a clydesdale compared to, say, a quarterhorse. The Clydesdale is
much bigger but also has disproportionately thick legs and I, for one, see
the balrog as being able to (literally) eat clydesdales for breakfast. :-O
I hope no one is taking my little biological tirade as meaning I'm an
anti-fantasy stick in the mud. I'm just saying that all this talk of
whether the balrog could fly or not is meaningless. I happen to think that
if Tolkien gave it wings (which he did) then he meant it to be able to fly.
Whether or not he *could* have flown out of the chasm, we'll never know.
Maybe he could but he wanted to give Gandalf a beating and maybe kill him.
The balrog never bothers to tell anybody his motives for doing things, so
there's no way of knowing
O. Sharp
"Balrogs-had-or-didn't-have-wings" thing several times, yet I've never
really seen this point addressed, I'll throw it out for the usual rounds
of discussion, argument and great lamentation. :)
Some have opined that Balrogs had wings, and could fly; the explanantion
for the Khazad-dum Balrog not taking wing in its battle with Gandalf
generally opines that there wasn't enough room in the Great Hall for it
to fully take wing and fly. But when it was fleeing from Gandalf a while
later, it eventually ends up at the peak of Zirak-zigil... where there is
presumably _plenty_ of room to fly... and yet instead of flapping its
hypothetical "wings" and flying away, it "fell from the high place and
broke the mountain-side where he smote it in his ruin" (_TT_ p. 106
hardback).
(This would be a good time that Glorfindel's First Age Balrog also "fell
backwards from the rock, and falling clutched Glorfindel's yellow locks
beneath his cap, and those twain fell into the abyss" (_BoLT II_, p. 194
hb). Though the circumstances were indeed somewhat different, it might be
worth suggesting that this account, written around 1916-17, might have
served as an early inspiration or model for Gandalf's later battle?...
Opinions? Thoughts?)
So, Pro-Wingers: any thoughts on the matter of the Plummeting Balrog? :)
...I myself have many problems with the "Balrogs-had-wings" school of
thought, but I do not post this with thoughts of swaying the opposition
or "winning" the "argument"; I am merely interested, and insatiably
curious. :) :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
o...@netcom.com Curiosity, they say, killed the cat. But I myself
have dogs. :)
!**?#!#$
> ) been working for several years now. As you say, they're
Actually, I got my information from a book called Dragons. It came out at
about the same time as Gnomes, Fairies, and Giants.
Graham Lockwood
"The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the
darkness grew. It stepped forward 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." (FotR, p. 345 in my book)
ker...@delphi.com
>Actually, I got my information from a book called Dragons. It came out at
>about the same time as Gnomes, Fairies, and Giants.
and dragons, oh my!
--
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
(Tinuviel)
KER...@delphi.com
O. Sharp
: > [snippp] But when it was fleeing from Gandalf a while
: >later, it eventually ends up at the peak of Zirak-zigil... where there is
: >presumably _plenty_ of room to fly... and yet instead of flapping its
: >hypothetical "wings" and flying away, it "fell from the high place and
: >broke the mountain-side where he smote it in his ruin" (_TT_ p. 106
: >hardback).
: > [snippp]
: >So, Pro-Wingers: any thoughts on the matter of the Plummeting Balrog? :)
: >
: >...I myself have many problems with the "Balrogs-had-wings" school of
: >thought, but I do not post this with thoughts of swaying the opposition
: >or "winning" the "argument"; I am merely interested, and insatiably
: >curious. :) :)
: "The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the
: darkness grew. It stepped forward 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." (FotR, p. 345 in my book)
Uhmmm... yes, I've read that, and also the "shadow about it reached out
like two vast wings" quote on the previous page, but - forgive me - they
don't make it clear whether the wings are physical or metaphorical, and
also don't really address my question - that of why the Balrog, fleeing
Gandalf, didn't take wing at the peak of Zirak-zigil.
I don't expect a concrete answer; if there were one, I'm sure it would
have been cited many years earlier. :) I _am_, however, interested in
speculation. Any thoughts or theories which sound plausible?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
o...@netcom.com ...Or, indeed, _im_plausible. I need to add some
new Tolkien Crackpot Theories to the web-site
now and then, you know. :)
!**?#!#$
The answer is remarkable simple, and it will allow us to tie together a
few other threads.
First to review the quotes: "It was like a great shadow..." Not "it was"
but "it was like".
"And its wings were spread from wall to wall..."
"The sun shone fiercely there..." but very quickly "...A great smoke rose
about us, vapour and steam. Ice fell like rain." So the incident solar
radiation was quickly masked before any signficant warming could occur;
and the ambient temperature was at or below freezing.
From the Silmarillion, "...their hearts were of fire, but they were
cloaked in darkness..."
And in not altogether irrelevant observation from 2001, Floyd observes
that after sunrise, his shadow is cannot be seen on the TMA-1, and he
calculate the monolith is absorbing vast amounts of energy. I've mislaid
my copy, and I don't remember the precise calculation, but it is
sufficient, apparently, to power an interstellar radio burst.
Finally, as others have pointed out, it is aerodynamickally impossible for
a dragon to fly as birds do, but instead they must have been enormous
gasbags. A similar calculation shows that it is unlikely Balrogs could fly
as birds do.
But what about a hot air balloon?
An enormous, shadowy black membrane could efficiently absorb all incident
radiation and ambient warming and use that to heat enough air within a sac
to become buoyant.
I propose the sequence of events,
(1) The Balrog enters the Chamber of Records. In order to fit within the
smaller chamber, it first deflates its airsac.
(2) At the Second Hall, its mane is ignited, the hot exhaust gasses
collect into the airsac as shadowy membrane inflates (enlarges).
(3) Bridge collapses before it has acheived buoyancy. It falls instead of
rising.
(4) "His fire was quenched." In under-Moria, the Balrog cannot generate
enough heat, nor is there any incident radiation. The Balrog is unable to
inflate its airsacs.
(5) Once up in Moria again, buoyancy would be useful, but the passageway
is too restricted.
(6) On Zirakzigil, the Balrog springs out in flame and bright sunlight.
Undoubtably it hopes to quickly achieve flight. However the air is so cold
it takes longer than expected to heat up. Then in the conflict, the
sunlight is lost. And ice and water fall upon it, cooling it and trapped
air further. The Balrog hopes to take flight, but fails.
Did Gandalf really throw down his foe? He was, after all, in the form of
an old man. Perhaps it was failed take-off attempt, or even Moria's
version of the Hindenburg disaster. As Gandalf says, nobody else saw the
battle. Was Gandalf stretching the truth in order to impress his allies?
Peregrin Took
Head for the hills!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!**?#!#$ wrote in message ...
>> ) Gandalf, didn't take wing at the peak of Zirak-zigil.
>
tml
Jouni Karhu
>So, Pro-Wingers: any thoughts on the matter of the Plummeting Balrog? :)
>
>...I myself have many problems with the "Balrogs-had-wings" school of
>thought, but I do not post this with thoughts of swaying the opposition
>or "winning" the "argument"; I am merely interested, and insatiably
>curious. :) :)
I guess there's the third possibility: that Balrogs have wings, but
are not able to fly . . . :) Sort of like a huge penguin. No. Not a
good comparison. Or, come to think of it . . .
Mark Burlison
>
> Bicker, bicker, bicker. Balrogs is too grand a heading for this sort
> of thing. Small Orcs would be better.
But it's strange how Balrogs always seem to get involved in flame wars at some
point. Just please, no wings.
Mark
--
=================================================================
World To World - Still issue 2. Anyone want to help with content?
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.cox2/World2World/index.html
=================================================================
Paganini <Nathan E. Banks>
serve the Flame of Udun, remember? :)
--
Annon
Et Annonello, nólë.
Mark Burlison wrote in message <35F25C75...@pemail.net>...
Paganini <Nathan E. Banks>
SPIRITS trapped in homemade bodies, powerd by darkness and the evil Flame of
Udun. I don't think it matters whether their bodies were phisically capable
of flying. The same with dragons. BTW, did I see it suggested below that
Dragons were black? I always thought they were red. (Smaug was, anyway)
I'm fairly sure that Tolkien didn't sit down with a scientific textbook and
fugure all this out. He wanted to tell a good story, which he does supremely
well. I think th eBalrog passage is one of the scariest in the books. The
great Gandalf almost overcome by some unknown power! What's going to happen
to the company? WHOOOoooOOOoo!
--
Annon
Et Annonello, nólë.
!**?#!#$ wrote in message ...
>> ) Gandalf, didn't take wing at the peak of Zirak-zigil.
>
Graham Lockwood
>I think you're getting a little overly scientific, here. Balrogs were
>SPIRITS trapped in homemade bodies, powerd by darkness and the evil Flame
of
>Udun. I don't think it matters whether their bodies were phisically capable
>of flying. The same with dragons. BTW, did I see it suggested below that
>Dragons were black? I always thought they were red. (Smaug was, anyway)
I think they were different colors. The most powerfull dragon ever was
Ancalagon the Black.
BTW, I found a reference in the Silmarillion (p. 252 in my book) about when
the Valar came down on Morgoth at the end of the First Age. It said that
"Earendil slew Ancalgon the Black, the mightiest of the dragon-host, and
cast him from the sky; and he fell upon the towers of Thangorodrim, and they
were broken in his ruin." Well, here's an example of someone "casting from
the sky" something that could obviously fly. If Earendil could cast down a
flying dragon, why couldn't Gandalf cast down a flying Balrog?
O. Sharp
: Did Gandalf really throw down his foe? He was, after all, in the form of
: an old man. Perhaps it was failed take-off attempt, or even Moria's
: version of the Hindenburg disaster.
So it was... the Hindenbalrog? :) :) :)
: As Gandalf says, nobody else saw the
: battle. Was Gandalf stretching the truth in order to impress his allies?
The old cliche' line "And after we kill him, we can make up any story we
want" comes leaping to mind. :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
o...@netcom.com "And after the War was over, the West defeated and the
Ring recovered, the mind of Sauron was free to turn to other
matters. Who had killed the Balrog? There were no witnesses,
the murder scene was broken and the evidence smashed, and
the only one who would talk about it was some crazed old
man who claimed _he_ did it. I knew the Balrog, and I
knew some old codger wasn't a match for him. He also said he
had died and come back to life, which certainly didn't add
credence to his story. So there I was: Nick Archer, my
business in Minas Tirith a shambles, hired on by Sauron. I
didn't like him, but I didn't like a lot of my clients,
and anyway a guy's gotta have money for booze..."
-from _The Valarauka's Long Sleep_ by Raymond Chandler
!**?#!#$
> ) the murder scene was broken and the evidence smashed, and
> ) the only one who would talk about it was some crazed old
> ) man who claimed _he_ did it. I knew the Balrog, and I
> ) knew some old codger wasn't a match for him. He also said he
Yeah, he was probably full of hot air.
jessie shelton
<snip>
> -from _The Valarauka's Long Sleep_ by Raymond Chandler
oh, lord, that was hilarious. (:
And next Nick Archer can go turn his attention to the other murder
mystery pressing on our minds: Who killed the Nazgul Captain? Was it
the mysterious Halfling, or the woman disguised as a warrior? And
there's this little grassy knoll over here...
jessie
(it was Eowyn. :P )
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
jessie shelton (one side of moebius)
shelton(AT)princeton.edu http://www.princeton.edu/~shelton
"Tick, clong, tick, clong, tick, clong, went the night."
- King Clode, _The White Deer_, Thurber
---------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Lockwood
O. Sharp wrote in message ...
>: "The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the
>: darkness grew. It stepped forward 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." (FotR, p. 345 in my book)
>
>Uhmmm... yes, I've read that, and also the "shadow about it reached out
>like two vast wings" quote on the previous page, but - forgive me - they
>don't make it clear whether the wings are physical or metaphorical, and
>also don't really address my question - that of why the Balrog, fleeing
>
>have been cited many years earlier. :) I _am_, however, interested in
>speculation. Any thoughts or theories which sound plausible?
I don't buy the "shadow about it reached out like two vast wings" idea: it's
a simile describing its shadow, not its wings. But the quote I put seems
pretty concrete to me. If you don't like then there's not much I can do
about. Balrogs aren't described very often.
Graham Lockwood
scientifically accurate, nor was it intended to be. I seriously doubt that
Tolkien came up with that outline of events and then wrote about it without
the technical details.
>Did Gandalf really throw down his foe? He was, after all, in the form of
>an old man. Perhaps it was failed take-off attempt, or even Moria's
>version of the Hindenburg disaster. As Gandalf says, nobody else saw the
>battle. Was Gandalf stretching the truth in order to impress his allies?
>
maggot
>
> >As I've said elsewhere, Tolkien wasn't big on scientific accuracy. There
> >has never been anything on earth with hollow bones that was anything like
> >the size of a balrog. As animals get bigger, their mass increases four
> >times as fast as their length so bones have to get really big and strong.
> >All of the really big birds, both extinct and extant, were flightless and
> >all of the flightless birds had solid bones. From a biological standpoint,
> >nothing the size of a balrog could possibly fly in Earth's gravity. Of
> >course, neither can dragons but that's never stopped anybody. It's that
> >whole "Secondary Belief" thing :-)
> >
> >
>
> What about pterodactyls?
Well, no one has ever proved that they actually did fly.
There is much contention over the issue...
maggot
maggot
>>So, Pro-Wingers: any thoughts on the matter of the Plummeting Balrog? :)
>>
>>...I myself have many problems with the "Balrogs-had-wings" school of
>>thought, but I do not post this with thoughts of swaying the opposition
>>or "winning" the "argument"; I am merely interested, and insatiably
>>curious. :) :)
Graham Lockwood wrote:
> "The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the
> darkness grew. It stepped forward 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." (FotR, p. 345 in my book)
"Something was coming up behind them. What it was could not
be seen. It was like a great shadow, in the middle of which
was a dark form, of man shape maybe..."
This was in the midst of a wall of fire that had only just
been bridged. This is also described as a, "dark figure
streaming with fire." Nothing is mentioned of wings on this
"man shape."
"His enemy halted again, and the shadow about it reached
like two vast wings."
Gandalf here says, "The dark fire will not avail you, flame
of Udun." (Udun, tolkien describes in his index simply as
'hell')
"It stepped forward on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew
itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from
wall to wall;"
The term wings is first a simile, then a metaphor for the
darkness that surrounds the Balrog. Otherwise the comment
that Gandalf could still be seen would be rather pointless,
having no reference for it. Tolkien may well have saved us
much debate had he written, "...it's wings of darkness
spread from wall to wall." or "it's wings of dark flame..."
but it would not have had the power that the metaphor
conveys by giving the darkness around the Balrog a tangible
essence.
You see, I don't see it written anywhere that the balrog had
wings, but I do see it written that a "great shadow"
surrounded this "dark figure" who is somehow connected to a
"dark fire" which is compared to wings. I certainly find
that easier to visualize than that a balrog standing on a
very narrow brige could have wings so enourmous as to touch
either wall of a "cavernous hall."
maggot
Megan Westerfield
> > Megan Westerfield wrote:
> > >how 'bout we all just agree to back off and start with a new attitude?
> > >just put down the baseball bats and act like adults? I know that with
> > >a group of highly intelligent ppl there is going to be conflict. But
> > >we do not have to succumb to our tempers.
> > Hear the Queen!
>
> Right on!! Hail to the Queen! I'll cancel already written posting on this
> matter as a token of my good will!!
Most noble of you. :) We can debate and discuss without
resorting to regression.
*Rabbyt the Elf-Queen
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>spoon<><><><><><><><><>
"Oh nobly born, let not thy mind be distracted. "
_The_Tibetan_Book_of_the_Dead_
Megan Westerfield
> !**?#!#$ <smj...@my-dejanews.com> writes:
>
> >Actually, I got my information from a book called Dragons. It came out at
> >about the same time as Gnomes, Fairies, and Giants.
>
> I remember the book on gnomes; though I don't remember fairies and giants
> and dragons, oh my!
*LOL*
Megan Westerfield
> > ) matters. Who had killed the Balrog? There were no witnesses,
> > ) the murder scene was broken and the evidence smashed, and
> > ) the only one who would talk about it was some crazed old
> > ) man who claimed _he_ did it. I knew the Balrog, and I
> > ) knew some old codger wasn't a match for him. He also said he
> Yeah, he was probably full of hot air.
yeah, like some of us on this newsgroup...just kidding, folks :)
Don't flame me for my sense of humour....sick and twisted though
it is....
have a nice day!
Ryan Paddy
>
> I think you're taking this way too seriously.
*LOL*
Righto!
Ryan
['Accidental humour is the best sort, don't you think?']
jan jordan
>
> Mike Kew wrote in message ...
> >On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Jouni Karhu <kur...@modeemi.cs.tut.fi> wrote
> >>
> >>Think not of sparrows when you think of flying; think of swans, or
> >>even bigger birds yet. And even those bigger birds have hollow bones,
> >>which the balrogs certainly do not have.
> >
> >Umm - you seem very certain of this... I don't recall anyone doing
> >a post-mortem on a Balrog?
>
> As I've said elsewhere, Tolkien wasn't big on scientific accuracy. There
> has never been anything on earth with hollow bones that was anything like
> the size of a balrog. As animals get bigger, their mass increases four
> times as fast as their length so bones have to get really big and strong.
> All of the really big birds, both extinct and extant, were flightless and
> all of the flightless birds had solid bones. From a biological standpoint,
> nothing the size of a balrog could possibly fly in Earth's gravity. Of
> course, neither can dragons but that's never stopped anybody. It's that
> whole "Secondary Belief" thing :-)
I dont know exactly what size a balrog is, but there existed flying
creatures on earth with wing spans of 15 m(some flying dinosaurs). much
more than any existing flying creature now. But anyway, i have to agree
that Tolkien didnt write scientific books and Balrogs arn't scientific
beeings. So there is no reason why they should be light in order to fly
or why they even needed wings to fly (superman doesnt need any either).
And on the other side why do they have to be able to fly if they have
wings. Maybe the wings are pure decoration? or just something that just
looked like wings? ore maybe something else?
In my opinion the balrog is more than a ugly creature with wings, it is
a supernatural beeing half physical body, half supernatural. tolkien
describes wings but wether they are physical or not he doesnt say. And
wether the balrog was able to fly with these wings he didnt say either (
maybe gandalf just didnt let him fly) Thats why my imagination of the
balrog looks different then any illustration of the balrog (My balrog
has no clear shape and the lesser part of his beeing is physical body.
And yes he has wings but only of smoky shadow) But still i can enjoy
other peoples imaginations of the balrog. Maybe you should try this too.
ciao
Jan
Graham Lockwood
>On 6 Sep 1998, !**?#!#$ wrote:
>
>> > ) matters. Who had killed the Balrog? There were no
witnesses,
>> > ) the murder scene was broken and the evidence smashed,
and
>> > ) the only one who would talk about it was some crazed
old
>> > ) man who claimed _he_ did it. I knew the Balrog, and I
>> > ) knew some old codger wasn't a match for him. He also
said he
>
>> Yeah, he was probably full of hot air.
>
>yeah, like some of us on this newsgroup...just kidding, folks :)
>
>Don't flame me for my sense of humour....sick and twisted though
>it is....
>
>have a nice day!
____ __
{ --.\ | .)%%%)%%
'-._\\ | (\___ %)%%(%%(%%%
`\\|{/ ^ _)-%(%%%%)%%;%%%
.'^^^^^^^ /` %%)%%%%)%%%'
jgs //\ ) , / '%%%%(%%'
, _.'/ `\<-- \<
`^^^` ^^ ^^
Look out! It's a hydrogen breathing dragon come to flame you! (or is it a
Balrog? I always get those two mixed up :-)
Megan Westerfield
> >Don't flame me for my sense of humour....sick and twisted though
> >it is....
> >
> >have a nice day!
>
>
> ____ __
> { --.\ | .)%%%)%%
> '-._\\ | (\___ %)%%(%%(%%%
> `\\|{/ ^ _)-%(%%%%)%%;%%%
> .'^^^^^^^ /` %%)%%%%)%%%'
> jgs //\ ) , / '%%%%(%%'
> , _.'/ `\<-- \<
> `^^^` ^^ ^^
>
> Look out! It's a hydrogen breathing dragon come to flame you! (or is it a
> Balrog? I always get those two mixed up :-)
THIS is FRICKIN' COOL.
Okay--here's the difference. We like some dragons, we hate all
Balrogs. Comprende?
!**?#!#$
Maybe you should read the line after --
Mike Scott Rohan
from Mike Kew <Mi...@kew1.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
[snip]
> Interesting - that's precisely how Terry Pratchett's dragons have
> been working for several years now. As you say, they're
> evolutionarily a bit tricky, 'cos they tend to explode when they
> get angry (or sneeze, or eat something ill-advised, or...). He
> also mentions how the BIG dragons fly using thermals from the
> fires they start on the ground.
Yes -- Terry was taking the piss out of Peter Dickinson's The Flight
of Dragons.
Cheers,
Mike
--
mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk
maggot
!**?#!#$
> ) wall to wall;"
You seem to be missing a line that appears in my edition:
"The Balrog bent low to whisper in Gandalf's ear, 'Quick, Robin, to the
Balrog-cave.'"
Michael Martinez
>So, Pro-Wingers: any thoughts on the matter of the Plummeting Balrog? :)
As was often pointed out in the past, dead Balrogs don't fly. Of course,
that's just an interpretation based on the fact that other dead things never
fly in Tolkien, either.
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
//\\ <http://www.xenite.org/index.htm>
// \\ENITE.org...............................................
Bob Bayse
Michael Martinez
>Who said it was dead when it fell?
J.R.R. Tolkien. Of course, I suppose we could argue with him and say it was
still alive with a shred of textual evidence.
Let's see if someone does....
!**?#!#$
Micheal did. Isn't that like the Word of God?
!**?#!#$
> ) J.R.R. Tolkien. Of course, I suppose we could argue with him and say
it was
> ) still alive with a shred of textual evidence.
Or you could read was Oh actually wrote.
> ) Let's see if someone does....
Let's see what you snipped:
> to fully take wing and fly. But when it was fleeing from Gandalf a while
> later, it eventually ends up at the peak of Zirak-zigil... where there is
> presumably _plenty_ of room to fly
> ...
> (This would be a good time that Glorfindel's First Age Balrog also "fell
> backwards from the rock, and falling clutched Glorfindel's yellow locks
> beneath his cap, and those twain fell into the abyss" (_BoLT II_, p. 194
So, your contention is that the Balrog was already dead when it jumped out
of the window on Silvertine? (Gandalf was a backstabber?) Or is it your
contention that the Balrog clutched Glorfindel's locks after it died?
Disney boy, if you're going to resort to cut and paste arguments, you'd
better dispose of the originals first. And don't blame JRRT just because
you can't parse english.
Jouni Karhu
>"Something was coming up behind them. What it was could not
>be seen. It was like a great shadow, in the middle of which
>was a dark form, of man shape maybe..."
"What it was could not be seen." -> The Company can't make out any
details yet, just a great shadow.
>This was in the midst of a wall of fire that had only just
>been bridged. This is also described as a, "dark figure
>streaming with fire." Nothing is mentioned of wings on this
>"man shape."
(Isn't the dark fire burning on its body? A fire that does not give
out light? A fire that is quenched after the Balrog and Gandalf fall?)
>"His enemy halted again, and the shadow about it reached
>like two vast wings."
The Company sees the form spread out, and it looks like wings. They
still don't see enough details . . . but they sure do look like wings.
>Gandalf here says, "The dark fire will not avail you, flame
>of Udun." (Udun, tolkien describes in his index simply as
>'hell')
IMHO not talking about the 'wings'.
>"It stepped forward on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew
>itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from
>wall to wall;"
And now the Balrog can be seen as much as it can be, and lo and
behold, they really were wings.
>You see, I don't see it written anywhere that the balrog had
>wings, but I do see it written that a "great shadow"
>surrounded this "dark figure" who is somehow connected to a
>"dark fire" which is compared to wings. I certainly find
>that easier to visualize than that a balrog standing on a
>very narrow brige could have wings so enourmous as to touch
>either wall of a "cavernous hall."
Oh, by the way, wasn't the bridge in a different hall than the one
with the fire and all?
Interesting to debate interpretations of passages without the book
handy ;)
--
'I have something to say! | 'The Immoral Immortal' \o JJ Karhu
It is better to burn out, | -=========================OxxxxxxxxxxxO
than to fade away!' | kur...@modeemi.cs.tut.fi /o
O. Sharp
referring to (wonder how _that_ could have happened? <g>), but I find the
initial premise quoted to be amusing:
: > ) >Who said it was dead when it fell?
: > )
: > ) J.R.R. Tolkien. Of course, I suppose we could argue with him and say
<raising an amused eyebrow> Am I reading this correctly? Is it being
posited that Gandalf, having already _defeated_ and _killed_ the Balrog,
and now about to die from his weariness and wounds, got the idea in his
head that he needed to just sort of casually _pick up_ the dead Balrog
and _throw_ it from the mountaintop? :) :)
Somehow Gandalf, even when he had more energy, never seemed to me like the
kind of guy who would go out of his way to do extra damage to an
already-dead enemy. When Theoden spoke to Saruman, saying Saruman's
troops "hewed Hama's body before the gates of the Hornburg, after he was
dead" (_TT_ p. 185 hardback), somehow I never thought of Gandalf as being
of the same temperament... :)
In any event, I did rather get the impression that the Balrog died
_because_ he "fell from the high place and broke the mountain-side *where
he smote it in his ruin*" (_TT_ p. 106 hb, emphasis mine). It would be an
effective way of killing it (assuming, of course, it was flightless).
Indeed, why else would Gandalf have gone to all the trouble of throwing
the thing off the mountaintop to _begin_ with? :)
: Or you could read was Oh actually wrote.
I certainly am glad _someone_ reads what I write. :) :) :)
: [snipppp] if you're going to resort to cut and paste arguments, you'd
: better dispose of the originals first.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
o...@netcom.com For the record, I have _not_ given any permissions
for third-party cancellation of my articles. :)
Michael Martinez
>: > ) >Who said it was dead when it fell?
>: > )
>: > ) J.R.R. Tolkien. Of course, I suppose we could argue with him and say
>: > ) it was still alive with a shred of textual evidence.
>
><raising an amused eyebrow> Am I reading this correctly? Is it being
>posited that Gandalf, having already _defeated_ and _killed_ the Balrog,
>and now about to die from his weariness and wounds, got the idea in his
>head that he needed to just sort of casually _pick up_ the dead Balrog
>and _throw_ it from the mountaintop? :) :)
Nope. However, Gandalf and the Balrog did fight for 2-3 days on the peak of
Zirak-Zigil, according to J.R.R. Tolkien (check the Tale of Years). Something
you seem to have overlooked in your quest for whatever it was you were
seeking.
>: Or you could read was Oh actually wrote.
>
>I certainly am glad _someone_ reads what I write. :) :) :)
The real shame is that so few read what TOLKIEN wrote, which was my point in
the first place....
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez said:
>> Nope. However, Gandalf and the Balrog did fight for 2-3 days on the peak of
>> Zirak-Zigil, according to J.R.R. Tolkien (check the Tale of Years).
>> Something you seem to have overlooked in your quest for whatever it
>> was you were seeking.
>
>balrog was dead when it fell, and now you seem to be saying that it wasn't
>dead when it fell, and J.R.R. Tolkien said they fought for 2-3 days. Was
>it dead when it fell or not? And what has how long they fought for got to
>do with anything? Please enlighten.
I'm not changing what I said. I was merely pointing out that O.Sharp's
original question, why didn't the Balrog just fly away when it got to the
peak, didn't take into consideration what was in the text.
The stock answer is, "It would have shortened an otherwise interesting story".
Whether the Balrog could fly is really irrelevant -- Tolkien wanted to have
Gandalf and the Balrog kill each other. Getting away from Gandalf, whether by
wing or foot, was simply not an option for the Balrog.
Gandalf said he cast down his enemy and in its ruin it smote the mountainside.
Since it was "ruined", it was dead. The original version of the story has a
more explicit kill, for what it's worth. When Glorfindel killed his Balrog,
he didn't actually kill it. It was clutching him when they went over the
cliff.
One might as well ask why Gandalf's Balrog didn't clutch him and take him
down, too. When Tolkien uses the phrase "cast down" or some variant on it, he
means only one thing: a final end has been brought to something. It's not an
ambiguous phrase at all. It would take a great stretch of interpretation to
show the Balrog could have still been alive when it smote the mountainside.
>> >: Or you could read was Oh actually wrote.
>> >
>> >I certainly am glad _someone_ reads what I write. :) :) :)
>>
>> The real shame is that so few read what TOLKIEN wrote, which was my point in
>> the first place....
>
>Yeah, it's a pity you're the only person on this newsgroup who reads
>TOLKIEN, Michael.
>
>Righto!
I never claimed that -- and why would I object to articles posted by people
who actually DO read Tolkien? If you're going to challenge the logic of what
I say about the people who are NOT checking the book, at least consider WHOM I
am saying this about. Have you ever seen me correct Margaret Dean? I
probably have, but it would be a rare event. And how often do I go against
David Salo on linguistic issues? For that matter, I don't correct him every
time he posts something non-linguistic. Bill Hicklin and I disagree on some
points, but he generally is correct in what he says because he does read the
books. And the list goes on.
But if you look at the articles posted to the Tolkien groups which actually
attempt to speak about things IN the books, the majority of them get some
point wrong because people usually write from memory (and this includes
occasional articles from me, corrections to which are sometimes accompanied
with great trollish fanfare).
I let most of the errors go because I don't have time, desire, or the
inclination to correct every minor detail. However, a topic as contentious as
the Balrog's wings deserves special attention because allowing these errors to
go unchallenged will only encourage people to accept that the incorrect ideas
have some merit worth repeating down the road.
Paganini <Nathan E. Banks>
was two seperate things!
(f you think this is dumb, just ignore it. But I thought it ws funny,
especially in light of all the Balrog Wing, Orc/Goblin debates we've been
having lately.0
--
Annon
Et Annonello, nólë.
Megan Westerfield wrote in message ...
>On Sat, 5 Sep 1998 ker...@delphi.com wrote:
>
>> !**?#!#$ <smj...@my-dejanews.com> writes:
>>
>> >Actually, I got my information from a book called Dragons. It came out
at
>> >about the same time as Gnomes, Fairies, and Giants.
>>
>> I remember the book on gnomes; though I don't remember fairies and giants
>> and dragons, oh my!
>
>*LOL*
>
Michael Martinez
In article <35F52ED2...@agility.co.nz>, Ryan says...
>
>Michael Martinez wrote:
><words to the effect that the Balrog was dead when it smote the
>mountainside>
>>
>> Gandalf said he cast down his enemy and in its ruin it smote the
>> mountainside. Since it was "ruined", it was dead. The original
>> version of the story has a more explicit kill, for what it's worth.
>> When Glorfindel killed his Balrog, he didn't actually kill it. It
>> was clutching him when they went over the cliff.
>
>I'm no expert on syntax, but isn't it possible to read "in its ruin it
>smote the mountainside" as meaning that it died when it hit the
>mountainside? That seems to be how a number of people here, myself
>include, have read the phrase. I can understand your interpretation, but
>the other seems more likely.
"in its ruin" means that it was in a state of ruin (dead). So, "and in its ruin
it smote the mountainside" (my words -- I don't have the book with me at work)
means it was already dead when it smote the mountainside.
Tolkien did not write that it was ruined when it smote the mountainside. That
would be an ambiguous statement, for it could mean "after it hit the mountain,
the Balrog was not only merely dead, it was most sincerely dead" or it could
mean "the Balrog was judiciously dead already at the precise moment when it
struck the mountainside".
>> One might as well ask why Gandalf's Balrog didn't clutch him and take him
>> down, too. When Tolkien uses the phrase "cast down" or some variant on it,
>> he means only one thing: a final end has been brought to something. It's
>> not an ambiguous phrase at all.
>
>That depends. If they had been fighting in a meadow, and Gandalf had "cast
>down" his enemy, I would agree with you...
It really only depends on how J.R.R. Tolkien used the phrase. Where does he use
it in a different sense? If you can provide an example, then your "that
depends" has some merit. Otherwise, you're assuming that Tolkien really was
using the phrase contrary to his habit without providing any cue to the reader
that he was doing so.
>But because they basically on top of a mountain, the phrase "cast down" can
>*very readily* be interpreted to mean that Gandalf threw his enemy down the
>mountain. That fact that it then smote the mountainside seems to reinforce
>this interpretation. I never believed it to be ambiguous either - but now
>that you point out your side I think I can (barely) conceive it. ;)
Tolkien never uses "cast down" to refer to throwing something off the side of a
mountain, off a roof top, off a parapet, or off anything. This would be a
highly unusual departure in idiom for him.
>> It would take a great stretch of interpretation to show the Balrog could
>> have still been alive when it smote the mountainside.
>
>I disagree. I find your interpretation more of a stretch, but I'm willing
>to admit there is ambiguity.
I'm not really interpreting anything here. That you would use a certain idiom
doesn't mean Tolkien would. Show us an example of where he uses "cast down" to
mean something other than "overthrow" or "kill" and you'll have made your point.
Otherwise, there is no room for interpretation. He is merely resorting to an
idiomatic phrase that has one meaning.
><I wrote, just a little bitterly>
>> >Yeah, it's a pity you're the only person on this newsgroup who reads
>> >TOLKIEN, Michael.
>>
>> I never claimed that -- and why would I object to articles posted by people
>> who actually DO read Tolkien?
>
>Everyone who posts here regularly reads him, man.
No, this is not the case at all. I could provide you with many citations of
articles from people who claim to have never read him at all, and from people
who claim not to have read the books in a long time (occasionally the phrase
"ten years" pops up). The vast majority of these articles are posted by people
who have read the books, yes, but most of the errors occur when people don't
bother to check the books to see if they are remembering things correctly.
>Sometimes we read him as meaning something a little different to what
>you read him as meaning.
I'm not talking about "meaning and interpretation". I'm just referring to the
articles where people don't check their facts against the book. For instane,
recently someone said that the word "wings" occurred in "The Bridge of
Khazad-dum" only once. I pointed out that it occurs twice. I did not accuse
that person of not having read the book, but the two passages have been cited
here frequently. They are very well-known to the regular readers of these
groups and it would strike me as odd that someone who had read the chapter (or
even just scanned it) just minutes prior to posting such a message would miss
the second "wings" passage.
And then there are certain people who insist on disagreeing with everything I
post lately. One such person insists there is, for example, a passage in THE
ROAD GOES EVER ON which I cannot find in my copy, and which he has failed to
cite in the past when asked where it is.
>You are certainly welcome to your interpretation.
Thank you. And you are welcome to yours. However, I make it clear when I am
interpreting and when I am not, and I don't appreciate having other people tell
me that I AM interpreting when, in fact, I am NOT.
>I only wish you would less often bludgeon us with the assertion that
>there is no room for any interpretation but your own. This is a point in case.
I have never made or implied any such claim, and I only wish you and others
would stop posting lies like this. They only cause trouble.
William
Michael Martinez wrote:
> Gandalf said he cast down his enemy and in its ruin it smote the mountainside.
> Since it was "ruined", it was dead. The original version of the story has a
> more explicit kill, for what it's worth. When Glorfindel killed his Balrog,
> he didn't actually kill it. It was clutching him when they went over the
> cliff.
>
> One might as well ask why Gandalf's Balrog didn't clutch him and take him
> down, too. When Tolkien uses the phrase "cast down" or some variant on it, he
> means only one thing: a final end has been brought to something. It's not an
> ambiguous phrase at all. It would take a great stretch of interpretation to
> show the Balrog could have still been alive when it smote the mountainside.
Please, Michael. It really is a "great stretch of interpretation" to take "ruin" and
determine from that the exact time of death. I don't imagine there was a coroner's
inquest. Where the Balrog "smote it in his ruin" it seems reasonable and even obvious
that the "smote" was part of the "ruin." In other words, just like Glorfindel's Balrog,
Ancalagon, Maeglin, and no doubt a few others, the 'Rog was finally done in (forced to
abandon its physical body) due to massive blunt trauma as a proximate result of
impacting a rocky mountainside at terminal velocity.
This line of argument, BTW, is not a very strong one for us No-wingers. The parallel of
Ancalagon comes to mind. Gandalf could well have reduced a flying Balrog to non-flying
status beforehand!
I am, however, troubled by the idea that the 'Rog hung around for the fight in the
first place. In the depths of sub-Moria it had tried to flee Gandal- once it hit the
open air one would expect it to take off, if it could.
--
_________________________________________________
William Cloud Hicklin "And he named him craven,
soli...@gamewood.net and lord of slaves"
_________________________________________________
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>
>> Gandalf said he cast down his enemy and in its ruin it smote the
>> mountainside. Since it was "ruined", it was dead. The original
>> version of the story has a more explicit kill, for what it's worth.
>> When Glorfindel killed his Balrog, he didn't actually kill it. It
>> was clutching him when they went over the cliff.
>>
>> One might as well ask why Gandalf's Balrog didn't clutch him and take him
>> down, too. When Tolkien uses the phrase "cast down" or some variant on it,
>> he means only one thing: a final end has been brought to something. It's
>> not an ambiguous phrase at all. It would take a great stretch of
>> interpretation to show the Balrog could have still been alive when it
>> smote the mountainside.
>
>Please, Michael. It really is a "great stretch of interpretation" to take
>"ruin" and determine from that the exact time of death.
Perhaps, but if I ever try to determine an "exact time of death", I suppose I'll
just have to wing it anyway, won't I?
>I don't imagine there was a coroner's inquest.
Agreed. No one walked up afterward and sang, "As coroner I must aver I've
thoroughly examined her...."
>Where the Balrog "smote it in his ruin" it seems reasonable and even obvious
>that the "smote" was part of the "ruin." In other words, just like
>Glorfindel's Balrog, Ancalagon, Maeglin, and no doubt a few others,
>the 'Rog was finally done in (forced to abandon its physical body) due
>to massive blunt trauma as a proximate result of impacting a rocky
>mountainside at terminal velocity.
Ancalagon, too, was dead when he smote Angband in his ruin -- unless there is
some doubt about whether he was capable of flight, despite his being a winged
dragon. I'll check on Maeglin and Glorfindel's balrog tonight, although I
suspect we'll disagree on what's canonical in those passages.
>This line of argument, BTW, is not a very strong one for us No-wingers.
I haven't seen any strong arguments from the no-wingers. :) Okay, okay, that
was a cheap shot.
>The parallel of Ancalagon comes to mind. Gandalf could well have reduced
>a flying Balrog to non-flying status beforehand!
>
>I am, however, troubled by the idea that the 'Rog hung around for the fight
>in the first place. In the depths of sub-Moria it had tried to flee Gandal-
>once it hit the open air one would expect it to take off, if it could.
But that would have shortened the story....
One can only make suppositions to explain WHY the story went the way it did at
this point. Tolkien doesn't seem to have offered any explanation of why the
Balrog didn't try to escape once it was out on the peak.
Michael Martinez
[snip]
>"It stepped forward on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew
>itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from
>wall to wall;"
>
>The term wings is first a simile, then a metaphor for the
>darkness that surrounds the Balrog. Otherwise the comment
>that Gandalf could still be seen would be rather pointless,
>having no reference for it.
Metaphor doesn't work this way, and the darkness is mentioned separately in the
same passage as that which I've left included above. You should take a look at
the thread "Simile and Metaphor" which is archived on Dejanews. Although you'll
find there people who agree with you, you'll also find lengthy explanations
which show WHY the wings are not metaphorical. A metaphor must stand for
something, but it is also something which normally is contradictory or opposed
in usage. For instance, Tolkien uses the metaphor "tempest of fire" -- fire is
normally quenched by water, which is what a tempest (a storm) normally produces.
>Tolkien may well have saved us much debate had he written, "...it's wings
>of darkness spread from wall to wall." or "it's wings of dark flame..."
>but it would not have had the power that the metaphor
>conveys by giving the darkness around the Balrog a tangible
>essence.
The only real metaphor concerning the balrog is Tolkien's use of "shadow". A
shadow cannot surround something, for it is merely the absence of light. So
when Tolkien refers to the shadow around the balrog, he is using a metaphor to
speak of an aspect of its nature which is not otherwise describable.
When the balrog draws itself up to a great height on the bridge, the book says
the darkness grew and the wings stretched from wall to wall. There is nothing
metaphorical in this passage. You really should have posted the entire
paragraph:
"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.
Tolkien points out that Gandalf could still be seen because "the darkness grew".
The wings came out of the darkness, and it may be the darkness is all wings at
this point, or the wings are only a part of the darkness which has taken on
visible shape. What are they? We don't know.
Although it may seem appropriate to pick and choose those parts of a sentence
which fit with a theory, to exclude the rest substantially alters the scope and
meaning of the passage -- and it's not appropriate to rewrite the story in order
to make it conform to an argument.
F. Jon Kull
1. buy a parakeet.
2. take said parakeet and beat the shit out of it (but don't kill it).
3. hurl the hurting bird to the ground with all your might.
4. analyse behavior of said bird. does it:
a. fly away
b. hit the ground and die
5. repeat five times to get a statistically sound result.
6. report back to headquarters.
(once again, please do not actaully try this experiement, just think about it)
!**?#!#$
> ) peak, didn't take into consideration what was in the text.
So the Balrog was already dead when it lept from the window?
> ) One might as well ask why Gandalf's Balrog didn't clutch him and take him
> ) down, too. When Tolkien uses the phrase "cast down" or some variant on it,
Why don't you? The answer could be that it didn't grab Gandalf's hair.
> ) means only one thing: a final end has been brought to something. It's
not an
> ) ambiguous phrase at all. It would take a great stretch of
interpretation to
> ) show the Balrog could have still been alive when it smote the mountainside.
For you perhaps. Cast down means thrown down. That's it. The Balrog was
thrown down. You can throw down dead, living, maimed, and inanimate
things. In fact it's even less ambiguous than that: he broke the
mountainside when he smote it in his ruin. It's quite obvious that it died
_when_ it hit; before that moment is merely wounded or incapcitated.
> ) I let most of the errors go because I don't have time, desire, or the
> ) inclination to correct every minor detail. However, a topic as contentious
You're free to start up a moderated group anytime you want. Until then
you're just one voice among many. An obnoxious one. And, it seems, not a
very popular one. Since you're so concerned about contributions to the
group, why not buy a clue.
!**?#!#$
Wrong. Ruin and dead are two different words. Ruin includes such states as
maimed.
> ) Tolkien did not write that it was ruined when it smote the
mountainside. That
You seem alone in your inability to parse english.
> ) I have never made or implied any such claim, and I only wish you and others
> ) would stop posting lies like this. They only cause trouble.
How cute. Disagree with Micheal and you're lying. You really do believe
you're a god, don't you?
William
Michael Martinez wrote:
> In article <ohhEyt...@netcom.com>, o...@netcom.com (O. Sharp) wrote:
> >So, Pro-Wingers: any thoughts on the matter of the Plummeting Balrog? :)
>
> As was often pointed out in the past, dead Balrogs don't fly. Of course,
> that's just an interpretation based on the fact that other dead things never
> fly in Tolkien, either.
OK, let's get this straight. Gandalf has fought with this thing for days
(after falling into the Abyss and climbing about 16,000 steps). He is burned.
He is burned out. He is so wiped out that when it is all over he dies, dead as
a doornail. But nonetheless, after he kills the Balrog on the peak, for some
indiscernable reason he picks up the corpse (twice as big as himself) and
heaves it over the cliff.
Right.
Phlip
>I don't understand, Michael. First you wrote that J.R.R. Tolkien said the
>balrog was dead when it fell, and now you seem to be saying that it wasn't
>dead when it fell, and J.R.R. Tolkien said they fought for 2-3 days. Was
>it dead when it fell or not? And what has how long they fought for got to
>do with anything? Please enlighten.
Try this:
After killing the (1,500 pound) Balrog beneath Zirak Zigil, Gandalf carries
the body to Durin's Stair. Around and around he drags the body, millions of
steps, from the basement of the earth to the dizzying summit. There Gandalf
lugs the dead body off the stair, and carries it on his back to the very
peak. Then he raises the body mightily overhead, and casts it down, where it
breaks the stairs in its fall.
Exhausted from the effort, Gandalf drops dead, but the Valar send him back.
With orders to take care of Sauron via the same procedure.
-- Phlip (no replies - address changed)
======= http://users.deltanet.com/~tegan/home.html =======
Graham Lockwood
I just got this in over the wire: Apparently the SPCB (Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Balrogs) has been looking into "The Gandalf Case"
for some time now and has decided to monitor this newsgroup since it is the
definitive, be-all, end-all of Tolkien Lore.
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>
>> In article <ohhEyt...@netcom.com>, o...@netcom.com (O. Sharp) wrote:
>> >So, Pro-Wingers: any thoughts on the matter of the Plummeting Balrog? :)
>>
>> As was often pointed out in the past, dead Balrogs don't fly. Of course,
>> that's just an interpretation based on the fact that other dead things never
>> fly in Tolkien, either.
>
>OK, let's get this straight. Gandalf has fought with this thing for days
>(after falling into the Abyss and climbing about 16,000 steps). He is burned.
>He is burned out. He is so wiped out that when it is all over he dies, dead as
>a doornail. But nonetheless, after he kills the Balrog on the peak, for some
>indiscernable reason he picks up the corpse (twice as big as himself) and
>heaves it over the cliff.
You're the second or third person to suggest Gandalf would have had to pick up a
dead body and heave it over the cliff. The book doesn't suggest anything like
that. What the book does say is that the balrog was cast down (killed,
overthrown, whathaveyou) and that in its ruin (i.e., whatever state being
"ruined" means) -- said ruin, following on the heels of being cast down,
precluding any further action from the balrog -- it smote the mountainside.
Now, why is it that the balrog could not possibly have died when Gandalf did
whatever he did to it that caused it to go tumbling off the cliff, peak, slope,
whatever it was it fell off/over?
Those of you who insist there MUST be more than one way of interpreting the text
keep overlooking the obvious. Gandalf zapped the sucker in the original version
and the lightning bolt killed it. Tolkien took that out and simply said Gandalf
cast it down and it hit the mountainside.
How is the poor powerless Gandalf supposed to kill the balrog in the first
place?
He did mention there was lightning in the battle, and he speaks of lightning in
his battle with the Nazgul on Weathertop. I suppose it's open to interpretation
whether Gandalf used lightning at any point in the story (that, POSSIBLY, the
Nazgul and the balrog were true wielders of lightning), but frankly, I just
don't buy that. Tolkien was never so convoluted as some of you would have us
make him out to be.
So, if you want an interpretation from me -- i.e., some attempt from me to fill
in the gaps and explain what I *think* may have been Tolkien's intention -- then
I believe that Gandalf killed the balrog with a lightning bolt or some blast of
power and that the force of the blow was strong enough to send the balrog
tumbling down the mountain in its ruin, whereupon it struck the mountainside in
that dead state of ruin, and caused some further damage.
THAT is *my* interpretation, and I don't doubt that (or care if) someone
disagrees with it. Disagree, disagree, disagree. I'm certainly in disagreement
with this business of Gandalf picking up a dead body and hurling it down for
some reason. Should he have beat on his chest before keeling over as well?
You know, in the future, if any of you want to argue with me over my
interpretations of the book, why not just ASK me what those interpretations are,
instead of trying to second-guess me? I'll be more than happy to TELL YOU all
whatever it is you want to know. This second-guessing business really gets us
nowhere.
Graham Lockwood
Phlip wrote in message <6t40rr$7b1$1...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>...
>After killing the (1,500 pound) Balrog beneath Zirak Zigil, Gandalf carries
>the body to Durin's Stair. Around and around he drags the body, millions of
>steps, from the basement of the earth to the dizzying summit. There Gandalf
>lugs the dead body off the stair, and carries it on his back to the very
>peak. Then he raises the body mightily overhead, and casts it down, where
it
>breaks the stairs in its fall.
>
>Exhausted from the effort, Gandalf drops dead, but the Valar send him back.
>With orders to take care of Sauron via the same procedure.
That was hillarious but I just have to say, "Where did that come from?"
SDROTH
>was two seperate things!
I should hope not! Of all the things they call us dragons.... (goes off
mumbling...)
-Kazul the *wayyyyy* too long title
Grimgard
>Prevention of Cruelty to Balrogs) has been looking into "The Gandalf Case"
>for some time now and has decided to monitor this newsgroup since it is the
>definitive, be-all, end-all of Tolkien Lore.
>
>
Does that mean that they won't be able to use a real Balrog in the movie? Or
just that they'll have to issue the standard disclaimer:
"No Balrogs or Dragons were injured in the making of this film. A veritable
mountain of Orcs did, however, bite the big one."
Grimgard
for sale: parachute, used once, never opened. small stain.
Megan Westerfield
> In article <ohhEyt...@netcom.com>, o...@netcom.com (O. Sharp) wrote:
> >So, Pro-Wingers: any thoughts on the matter of the Plummeting Balrog? :)
> As was often pointed out in the past, dead Balrogs don't fly. Of course,
> that's just an interpretation based on the fact that other dead things never
> fly in Tolkien, either.
*LOLRTF*
Gallia
Hey... I've been reading this newsgroup off and on for about 3 years... even
used to post to it once in a while... this Balrog debate has *always* been
here... what are the chances we'll ever get it solved?
Not saying that we should stop or anything. I mean, *I* still read it. ;-)
I find balrogs fascinating... but that's a long story.
For what it's worth, I'm on the 'Balrogs don't have wings' side. ;-)
-Eliz-
telnet://tangled.mux.net:9876
Gala@Tangled Web MUSH
Paganini <Nathan E. Banks>
you were arguing on the "Gandalf heaved the body over the edge" side, and
was allready to discount what you said. Kudos on your presentation. I'd like
to make just one leeetle comment though.
>THAT is *my* interpretation, and I don't doubt that (or care if) someone
It seems that you *do* care if someone disagrees, 'cause every time they do,
you start yelling at them pretty quickly. Disagreement is fine, but it's
more fun if the yelling is extracted.
Paganini <Nathan E. Banks>
--
Annon
Et Annonello, nólë.
Grimgard wrote in message
<199809082140...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Jouni Karhu
>
>Thank you. And you are welcome to yours. However, I make it clear when I am
>interpreting and when I am not, and I don't appreciate having other people tell
>me that I AM interpreting when, in fact, I am NOT.
Just a quick note -- _every_ reader of _every_ text makes an
interpretation of the text. Basically only mathematics have absolutes.
So I guess I'm telling you that yes, you _are_ interpreting when you
read Tolkien. As are we all.
(of course, some interpretations are more likely than others)
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>
>> Gandalf said he cast down his enemy and in its ruin it smote the
>> mountainside. Since it was "ruined", it was dead. The original
>> version of the story has a more explicit kill, for what it's worth.
>> When Glorfindel killed his Balrog, he didn't actually kill it. It
>> was clutching him when they went over the cliff.
>>
>> not an ambiguous phrase at all. It would take a great stretch of
>> interpretation to show the Balrog could have still been alive when it
>> smote the mountainside.
>
>Please, Michael. It really is a "great stretch of interpretation" to take
>there was a coroner's inquest. Where the Balrog "smote it in his ruin"
>it seems reasonable and even obvious that the "smote" was part of the
>"ruin." In other words, just like Glorfindel's Balrog, Ancalagon, Maeglin,
>and no doubt a few others, the 'Rog was finally done in (forced to
>abandon its physical body) due to massive blunt trauma as a proximate
>result of impacting a rocky mountainside at terminal velocity.
Well, I'm home now, so let's just do a little comparison.
"'There upon Celebdil was a lonely window in the snow, and before it
lay a narrow space, a dizzy eyrie above the mists of the world. The
shun shown fiercely there, but all below was wrapped in cloud. Out
he sprang, and even as I came behind, he burst into new flame. There
was none to see, or perhaps in after ages songs would still be sung
of the Battle of the Peak.' Suddenly Gandalf laughed. 'But what
would they say in song? Those that looked up from afar thought that
the mountain was crowned with storm. Thunder they heard, and
lightning, they said, smote upon Celebdil, and leaped back broken
into tongues of fire. Is not that enough? A great smoke rose
about us, vapor and steam. Ice fell like rain. I threw down
my enemy, and he fell from the high place and broke the mountain-side
where he smote it in his ruin. Then darkness took me, and I strayed
out of thought and time, and I wandered far on roads that I will
not tell.'"
(From "The White Rider" in THE TWO TOWERS)
Well, so much for my "cast down" -- Gandalf really said "I threw down my
enemy". But let's see how Maeglin bought the farm. I personally am
prejudiced against THE SILMARILLION where Maeglin's story is concerned but
I'll quote it anyway just for the sake of completeness:
"Tuor sought to rescue Idril from the sack of the city, but Maeglin
had laid hands on her, and on Earendil; and Tuor fought with Maeglin
on the walls, and cast him far out, and his body as it fell smote
the rocky slopes of Amon Gwareth thrice ere it pitched into the
flames below...."
(From "Of Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin" in THE SILMARILLION)
Not very Gandalf-Balrog like at all. However:
"...When Meglin saw this he would stab Earendel with a short knife
he had; but that child but his left hand, that his teeth sank in,
and he staggered, and stabbed weakly, and the mail of the small
coat turned the blade aside; and thereupon Tuor was upon him and
his wrath was terrible to see. He seized Meglin by that hand
that held the knife and broke the arm with the wrench, and then
taking him by the middle leapt with him upon the walls, and flung
him far out. Great was the fall of his body, and it smote
Amon Gwareth three times ere it pitched in the midmost of the
flames; and the name of Meglin has gone out in shame from among
Eldar and Noldoli."
(From "The Fall of Gondolin" in THE BOOK OF LOST TALES, PART TWO)
Meglin is still not "thrown down", and there is no lightning and thunder, and
it's clear that Meglin is alive and well as he goes tumbling to his fate after
being "flung far out".
So, if Gandalf did to the Balrog what Tuor did to Maeglin/Meglin, he must have
picked the old boy up and tossed him off the cliff. I wonder if the Balrog
really did weigh 1500 pounds? Otherwise, what basis do we have for suggesting
that "I threw down my enemy" is the same as "flung far out"?
Let's go back to Glorfindel's Balrog. I'll just cite "The Fall of Gondolin"
if you don't mind.
"...Already the half had passed the perilous way and the falls
of Thorn Sir, when that Balrog that was with the rearward foe, when
that Balrog that was with the rearward foe leapt with great might
on certain lofty rocks that stood into the path on the left side
upon the lip of the chasm, and thence with a leap of fury he was
past Glorfindel's men and among the women and the sick in the
front, lashing with his whip of flame. Then Glorfindel leapt
forward upon him and his golden armour gleamed strangely in
the moon, and he hewed at that demon that it leapt again upon a
great boulder and Glorfindel after. Now there was a deadly
combat upon that high rock above the folk; and these, pressed
behind and hindered ahead, were grown so close that well nigh
all could see, yet was it over ere Glorfindel's men could leap
to his side. The ardour of Glorfindel drave that Balrog from
point to point, and his mail fended him from its whip and
claw. Now had he beaten a heavy swinge upon its iron helm,
now hewn off the creature's whip-arm at the elbow. Then
sprang the Balrog in the torment of his pain and fear fell
full at Glorfindel, who stabbed like a dart of a snake; but
he found only a shoulder, and was grappled, and they swayed
to a fall upon the crag-to. Then Glorfindel's left hand
sought a dirk, and this he thrust up that it pierced the
Balrog's belly nigh his own face (for that demon was double
his stature); and it shrieked, and fell backwards from the
rock, and falling clutched Glorfindel's yellow locks
beneath his cap, and those twain fell into the abyss.
"Now this was a very grievous thing, for Glorfindel was
most dearly beloved -- and lo! the dint of their fall echoed
about the hills, and the abyss of Thorn Sir rang. Then
at the death-cry of the Balrog the Orcs before and behind
wavered and were slain or fled far away, and Thorondor
himself, a mighty bird, descended to the abyss and brought
up the body of Glorfindel; but the Balrog lay, and the
water of Thorn Sir ran black for many a day far below
in Tumladen."
(Ibid.)
Not exactly a close match here, either. But let's take a look at Ancalagon's
last dash of fame.
"But Earendil came, shining with white flame, and about
Vingilot were gathered all the great birds of heaven and
Thorondor was the captain, and there was battle in the
air all the day and thruogh a dark night doubt. Before
the rising of the sun Earendil slew Ancalagon the Black,
the mightiest of the dragon-host, and cast him from the
sky; and he fell upon the towers of Thangorodrim, and
they were broken in his ruin...."
(From "Of The Voyage of Earendil and the War of Wrath"
in THE SILMARILLION)
Now, this is interesting. Earendil kills Ancalagon and then Ancalagon "fell
upon the towers of Thangorodrim, and they were broken in his ruin". Sounds
rather like the Gandalf-Balrog incident to me. :)
Of course, Earendil also "cast him from the sky". Did Earendil actually pick
up the dragon somehow and toss him off Vingelot? That's some interesting
imagery (and probably this is the passage which influenced me to think of
Gandalf casting down his enemy).
>This line of argument, BTW, is not a very strong one for us No-wingers. The
>parallel of Ancalagon comes to mind. Gandalf could well have reduced a
>flying Balrog to non-flying status beforehand!
Well, just to turn the stake after driving it into the heart of the argument,
I must say that Gandalf could indeed have reduced a flying Balrog to
non-flying status beforehand -- by killing it, just as Earendil first killed
Ancalagon. :)
>I am, however, troubled by the idea that the 'Rog hung around for the
>fight in the first place. In the depths of sub-Moria it had tried to
>flee Gandalf - once it hit the open air one would expect it to take off,
>if it could.
And if it wished to. Fleeing Gandalf could mean any number of things, and one
is not obligated to assume that the Balrog desired escape any more than that
it desired to kill Gandalf.
Michael Martinez
>>
>>Thank you. And you are welcome to yours. However, I make it clear when I am
>>interpreting and when I am not, and I don't appreciate having other people
>>tell me that I AM interpreting when, in fact, I am NOT.
>
>interpretation of the text. Basically only mathematics have absolutes.
>So I guess I'm telling you that yes, you _are_ interpreting when you
>read Tolkien. As are we all.
>
>(of course, some interpretations are more likely than others)
And, of course, this is wrong. You may be thinking of literal interpretation
(or not), which is the only interpretation I have admitted to for my
non-interpretive citations from the books.
Remember, I'm most often accused of interpretation when I cite the books.
"Interpretation" usually becomes an issue around here when someone is
unwilling to admit they don't know what they are talking about because it's
been shown the book contradicts what they say.
Graham Lockwood
Michael Martinez wrote in message <6t4ft9$au0$1...@camel15.mindspring.com>...
> "But Earendil came, shining with white flame, and about
> Vingilot were gathered all the great birds of heaven and
> Thorondor was the captain, and there was battle in the
> air all the day and thruogh a dark night doubt. Before
> the rising of the sun Earendil slew Ancalagon the Black,
> the mightiest of the dragon-host, and cast him from the
> sky; and he fell upon the towers of Thangorodrim, and
> they were broken in his ruin...."
> (From "Of The Voyage of Earendil and the War of Wrath"
> in THE SILMARILLION)
>
>Now, this is interesting. Earendil kills Ancalagon and then Ancalagon
"fell
>upon the towers of Thangorodrim, and they were broken in his ruin". Sounds
>rather like the Gandalf-Balrog incident to me. :)
>
>Of course, Earendil also "cast him from the sky". Did Earendil actually
pick
>up the dragon somehow and toss him off Vingelot? That's some interesting
>imagery (and probably this is the passage which influenced me to think of
>Gandalf casting down his enemy).
Boy this looks familiar.
Phlip
>"fell
>>upon the towers of Thangorodrim, and they were broken in his ruin".
Sounds
>>rather like the Gandalf-Balrog incident to me. :)
>>
>>Of course, Earendil also "cast him from the sky". Did Earendil
actually
>pick
>>up the dragon somehow and toss him off Vingelot? That's some
interesting
>>imagery (and probably this is the passage which influenced me to think
of
>>Gandalf casting down his enemy).
>
And don't forget Glorfindel (the first) and the Balrog in the Eagle's
Pass, where the refugees, including the young Earendil, escaped from the
Sack of Gondolin. Seems injuring these things bad enough they'd fall,
and then pushing them off, is the only guaranteed Balrog Remover...
-- Phlip (no replies - address munged)
======= http://users.deltanet.com/~tegan/home.html =======