Back to Balrogs
Tilion
How many people here think that the Balrog in LOTR was a shapechanger
that grew in size in the fight with Gandalf?
Also, how many here think that if the Balrog did grow greatly in size
(and not merely in its shadow), that the text is inconsistent; i.e., as
the bridge is described as so "narrow" that it could only be traversed
by human-sized beings single file, then is it or is it not inconsistent
to have it traversed by a Balrog which has "drawn itself up to a GREAT
height" and makes "Gandalf seem small"?
Example: Gandalf = 6 feet tall, Bridge = 3 feet wide (reasonable for one
person, but probably not two)
Balrog = 12 feet tall (described in Lost Tales as being
twice the size of Glorfindel. This is just an illustration, not
necessarily an accurate depiction of the Balrog in Moria.)
Therefore, in this example, the Balrog is the equivalent of Gandalf
standing on a bridge 1.5 feet wide. Fairly precarious, I would say.
Matt Gable
On Mon, 23 Mar 1998, Phil wrote:
>
> I have read a lot of opinions about this and would just like to give my
> picture of how things happened. I don't care if no-one else agrees with
> it but this is how I picture it. I don't have my books here at the
> moment so will have to tell it from memory.
[description snipped]
That's about how I'd tell it. I might even point out a couple more
things in some places.
In a duel, it's important not to "telegraph" your next attack, since an
opponent may see it coming and counter while you're in mid-attack and
vulnerable. This becomes more and more important as the skill of the
combatants increases.
Given that these are two Maiar, presumably extremely skilled on many
levels, the need to avoid telegraphing would be intense.
It's suggestive that when the Balrog's "fire died, but the darkness
grew," Gandalf suddenly appeared "small...grey and bent." Could this be
the same action, just taking a different form for each of them?
"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."
I read the passage this way: after Gandalf's initial challenge, the Balrog
does not parley. Instead, it "cloaks." It wraps itself in deep shadow
and allows its fires to die, concealing itself preparatory to an attack.
Gandalf, seeing it take this action, understands the jig is up and
an attack is imminent. Gandalf also "cloaks," taking the appearance,
characteristic for him, of a harmless old man. Behind their veils, the
two Maiar summon their power unobserved by the other.
"From out of the shadow a red sword leaped flaming."
There's no sound here, no warning, no suggestion of a swing or glimpse of
the sword's wielder. The weapon simply appears, flying at its target out
of the shadow created by the Balrog.
"There was a ringing clash and a stab of white fire. The Balrog fell
back and its sword flew up in molten fragments. The wizard swayed on the
bridge, stepped back a pace, and then again stood still."
Nevertheless, Gandalf blocks and counters unexpectedly by destroying the
Balrog's sword with some kind of blast of fire. But we don't actually
see this: we have to guess from the sound and the destruction of the
sword.
As for growing and flying and wings and all that, by my reading the thing
doesn't grow but does have a "shadow" that's under its control. It's not
a natural shadow at all, but more like a visible magnetic field. A
volume of space around it darkens from the edges, intensifying to
near-total darkness around a vague black form at the center. When it
cloaked, it used the shadow, enlarged and given a vaguely winged shape,
to threaten Gandalf: it didn't actually grow.*
I always regarded the wings as metaphorical. Wings don't fit my picture
of the Balrog at all, nor fangs nor claws. The Balrog doesn't seem
bestial, but rather other-planar. It's a creature that warps the very
light around it by its presence, something not meant to be in this world,
completely jarring and frightening in stone-and-leather Middle-earth.
It's a Demon of Fire and nothing like the other major enemies, dragons or
evil undead like the Barrow-wights.
Gable
*It comes to mind that enlarging the shadow would have shortened the
distance in which the sword-stroke was visible. In fact, if
the shadow had completely enclosed Gandalf, he wouldn't have been able to
see the sword at all. Maybe there's
significance to the statement, "still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering
in the gloom." Maybe he was holding the Balrog's shadow back from
him, and that's why it spread upward and to the sides, rather than
flowing forward over the Bridge and over Gandalf.
G
Michael Martinez
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.98031...@soc3.acpub.duke.edu>, Matt Gable <mga...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>I always regarded the wings as metaphorical. Wings don't fit my picture
>of the Balrog at all, nor fangs nor claws. The Balrog doesn't seem
>bestial, but rather other-planar. It's a creature that warps the very
>light around it by its presence, something not meant to be in this world,
>completely jarring and frightening in stone-and-leather Middle-earth.
>It's a Demon of Fire and nothing like the other major enemies, dragons or
>evil undead like the Barrow-wights.
Well, I suppose they could have *floated* across Hithlum like puffs of
smoke....
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web
\\// Mic...@xenite.org
//\\ Martinez <http://www.xenite.org/index.htm>
// \\ENITE.org...............................................
William
Matt Gable wrote:
>
[snip]
>
>
> "There was a ringing clash and a stab of white fire. The Balrog fell
> back and its sword flew up in molten fragments. The wizard swayed on
> the
> bridge, stepped back a pace, and then again stood still."
>
> Nevertheless, Gandalf blocks and counters unexpectedly by destroying
> the
> Balrog's sword with some kind of blast of fire. But we don't actually
>
> see this: we have to guess from the sound and the destruction of the
> sword.
You've left out the intervening sentence: "Glamdring glittered white in
answer." It appears that Gandalf parried the stroke with Glamdring, and
the Balrog's blade shattered explosively against the Noldorin steel.
{{snipped but agreed to]
--
_________________________________________________
William Cloud Hicklin "And he named him craven,
soli...@gamewood.net and lord of slaves"
_________________________________________________
Matt Gable
On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, Michael Martinez wrote:
> Well, I suppose they could have *floated* across Hithlum like puffs of
> smoke....
I thought you'd have got tired of this skein by now. As long as you
don't get that consultant's position with Disney and make them put wings
on the Balrogs in the movie, it's all one to me whether you picture them
with wings, claws, fangs, scales, tails, forked tongues, hairy armpits
and/or bad breath. *I* think they're much more compelling as
light-warping shadowy humanoids that can never be seen clearly enough to
distinguish any details. Such an enemy is much more frightening than one
with big teeth and bat wings.
Your Balrog is unsubtle and unconvincing as a slayer of Elf-lords and
wizards. I think I should be given the Balrog graphics subcontract: you
should stick to making sure the dialog matches the text.
Gable
CFoster885
<a rather plausable <sp?> explanation snipped>
>. Instead, it "cloaks." It wraps itself in deep shadow
>and allows its fires to die, concealing itself preparatory to an attack.
That is what I think exactly. Although it probably shrouded itself for
dramatic purpouses as well.
--
Casey Foster
***
"The secret to happiness is high expectations and your own bag of chips"
-Dogbert
Michael Martinez
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.980326...@bio3.acpub.duke.edu>, Matt Gable <mga...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, Michael Martinez wrote:
>
>> Well, I suppose they could have *floated* across Hithlum like puffs of
>> smoke....
>
>I thought you'd have got tired of this skein by now. As long as you
>don't get that consultant's position with Disney and make them put wings
>on the Balrogs in the movie, it's all one to me whether you picture them
>with wings, claws, fangs, scales, tails, forked tongues, hairy armpits
>and/or bad breath. *I* think they're much more compelling as
>light-warping shadowy humanoids that can never be seen clearly enough to
>distinguish any details. Such an enemy is much more frightening than one
>with big teeth and bat wings.
But Tolkien put wings on them and had them fly around. Rather mundane, I
suppose, but he also gave them the darkness to play with.
>Your Balrog is unsubtle and unconvincing as a slayer of Elf-lords and
>wizards.
It's not my Balrog. I don't have one, never kept one, and am not sure of what
I'd do with one were one to come into my possession.
>I think I should be given the Balrog graphics subcontract: you
>should stick to making sure the dialog matches the text.
Sorry -- I'd rather see a Balrog faithful to the description provided by
Tolkien. Barring that, at least something with wings would suffice. Or maybe
a puff of smoke.
Michael Martinez
In article <199803270225...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, cfost...@aol.com (CFoster885) wrote:
><a rather plausable <sp?> explanation snipped>
>>. Instead, it "cloaks." It wraps itself in deep shadow
>>and allows its fires to die, concealing itself preparatory to an attack.
>
>That is what I think exactly. Although it probably shrouded itself for
>dramatic purpouses as well.
Or it could have been converting itself to a puff of smoke in anticipation of
its need to fly out of the chasm. You never know.
Maybe it was just trying to cover up a bad hair day or something....
David Salo
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.98031...@soc3.acpub.duke.edu>,
Matt Gable <mga...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
> I always regarded the wings as metaphorical. Wings don't fit my picture
> of the Balrog at all, nor fangs nor claws. The Balrog doesn't seem
> bestial, but rather other-planar. It's a creature that warps the very
> light around it by its presence, something not meant to be in this world,
> completely jarring and frightening in stone-and-leather Middle-earth.
I rather agree, though I hadn't thought of the Balrog this way before.
>
>
> *It comes to mind that enlarging the shadow would have shortened the
> distance in which the sword-stroke was visible. In fact, if
> the shadow had completely enclosed Gandalf, he wouldn't have been able to
> see the sword at all. Maybe there's
> significance to the statement, "still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering
> in the gloom." Maybe he was holding the Balrog's shadow back from
> him, and that's why it spread upward and to the sides, rather than
> flowing forward over the Bridge and over Gandalf.
Good idea!
DS
Rolf Wagner
<snipsnap all the stuff>
Uhm... I know you'll hate me but a question came to my mind... if he had
wings why did he fall?
::shrugs::
Rolf Wagner
Michael Martinez
How was he supposed to fly, and why should he have flown?