What if Balrogs had wings??
Steuard Jensen
decent job making my point, and because I'd appreciate the
contribution of the mildly more "scholarly" tone there if this
blossomed into an active and interesting discussion.]
Quoth Tom & Linda <TKAN...@worldnet.att.net> in article
<3F9863B9...@worldnet.att.net>:
> Doesn't the following paragraph (Page 371, FotR, paperback edition)
> definitely state that Balrogs have wings?
No, actually. :) See below, and/or see the FAQ entry on this topic,
which you can find in the Very Frequently Asked Questions section near
the top of my Tolkien Meta-FAQ, at
The discussion there gives a pretty good overview of the topic, if I
do say so myself; Conrad's essay is much more complete. I'll try not
to repeat the FAQ's information too much in what I say below, though
this post is more or less self-contained. :)
Back to your quote (which I've trimmed to its most essential bit):
> "[The Balrog] stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly
> it drew itself up to a great height, and it's wings were spread from
> wall to wall..."
> Sounds to me like JRR says that Balrogs have wings. Unless you don't
> believe JRR. Or unless I'm missing something.
As a side note, be careful with the whole "Unless you don't believe
JRR" thing: it's all too easy for comments like that to be taken as
insults when a discussion gets heated. Of course, that probably
wouldn't happen if people always included the humble "Or unless I'm
missing something" that you did. I think you're safe. :)
As it turns out, you _are_ missing something, though it's a fairly
subtle point. The passage you've quoted above certainly seems clear,
but in context it is considerably less so. You've actually hit the
nail on the head with your next quote (which, significantly, came
before the one quoted above):
> Other references like "the shadow about it reached out like two vast
> wings" (Page 370) may be a bit vague, but the paragraph above
> doesn't seem vague.
The essential thing to notice is that this is the first mention of
"wings" in association with the Balrog, and they aren't introduced as
"real" wings at all (for some definitions of "wing", anyway: some of
even the most intense discussions on this topic boil down to nothing
but what different people mean by the word). The "wings" described
here are purely a descriptive term for the shape that the "shadow"
about the Balrog took.
When, a little later, we reach the "definitive" quote you mentioned
first, there are basically three ways to interpret it:
1. The word "wings" here refers to the same thing that it did before:
the "shadow" around the Balrog that had that shape. Tolkien
presumably said "wings" rather than "wing-shaped shadow" this time
because it's a more elegant phrase that way.
2. The word "wings" here, stripped of its qualifier "like", clarifies
the nature of the Balrog-parts in question: the shadowy form that
only looked vaguely "like" wings from a distance can now be clearly
recognized for the well-defined feature that it is.
3. The word "wings" here refers to an entirely new aspect of the
Balrog: flesh and blood flappy things attached to its shoulders or
something. Thus, the Balrog has two very different pairs of
"wings": these "normal" ones, and the "shadow" shaped like wings.
I've seen people who espoused all three of these positions, some more
often than others. The last one has always struck me as rather silly,
I have to admit, and I think it has the fewest supporters. The second
is the best pro-wing interpretation of the evidence that I know of,
but for some reason it still doesn't feel "right" to me. I think I
just have a gut feeling that Tolkien would have been a bit more
explicit if the word was actually supposed to carry new, more detailed
information about the Balrog's appearance.
That leaves the first interpretation, which is in fact the one I
prefer. I sometimes like to illustrate the idea with a different
example (to take any Balrog preconceptions out of the mix):
Exploring a strange, alien planet, Art came across a pile of pulpy,
green-skinned fruit that look remarkably like pears. After a few
minutes' worry that they might be poisonous, Art threw caution to
the wind, picked up one of the pears, and bit into it.
Now, taken on its own, one could claim that the second sentence
definitively states that the fruit was a pear. But in context, that's
clearly not the case: the word "pears" in that second sentence
undoubtedly refers to the mysterious pear-like fruit mentioned
earlier. It certainly doesn't imply that there was a second pile of
true pears nearby!
And I don't think this phrasing would give most readers the impression
that Art had somehow figured out that the unknown fruit were real
pears: that would usually require at least a word or two of
explanation. In fact, if Art then exclaimed "It's a pear!", we would
probably be surprised, and curious to know what a pear was doing on
this strange, alien planet. I think that my "interpretation 1" is the
most natural way to read a passage like this.
For the record, this example is more or less paraphrasing a scene in
Douglas Adams's _The Restaurant at the End of the Universe_. The only
substantive difference there is that Adams always and repeatedly uses
the simile form, talking about "the thing which looked like a pear"
over and over. Thus, Arthur's statement "It's a pear" after taking a
bite comes across as rather funny after that carefully qualified
lead-up. The scene's humor come specifically because readers
naturally expect that when they're told "A is like B", that means that
A is similar to B but _not_ identical to it. I believe that the same
applies to the description of the Balrog in LotR: as soon as we're
told that the "shadow" is "like" wings, that implies that the "shadow"
isn't a set of "normal" wings.
In fact, Tolkien does the same thing just a bit earlier with the
"shadow" itself: he introduces the Balrog with the phrase "it was like
a great shadow". Among other things, that means that the "shadow"
wasn't a "normal" shadow (the kind I cast on the wall when a light
shines on me, for example), but it was similar to one in some ways.
(Some people have described this "shadow" as a sort of "palpable
darkness", which seems like as good a description as any... but
there's no dictionary definition of "shadow" that comes even close to
that meaning.)
And when Tolkien later says that "the shadow about it reached out like
two vast wings", I don't think he is talking about some "normal"
shadow that the Balrog cast on the cavern floor! But if you subscribe
to "interpretation 2" (or 3), it seems like that's what you would have
to conclude: either (#2) what only looked "like" a shadow from farther
away was now seen to be an actual, ordinary shadow, or (#3) the Balrog
had one amorphous shadow-like thing about it AND an ordinary shadow,
the latter of which is what spread out like wings. Both of those
readings just seem silly to me. (Especially as the Balrog was
_emitting_ light at the time!)
Anyway, that's why I believe that whatever "wings" the Balrog had were
the same as the "shadow" itself: some sort of "dark emanation" made of
"shadow stuff" or "palpable darkness". I don't even think that those
"wings" were permanantly in the shape of wings, though we don't have
much evidence on that point. Others disagree, certainly, but I
haven't seen any argument on the topic in years that made me seriously
doubt my conclusion.
Do take a look at the FAQ, in any case; it tries to be more or less
balanced, and it includes a consensus statement that quite a few
experts on both sides of the debate agreed to at one point.
Steuard Jensen
ste...@nomail.com
: That leaves the first interpretation, which is in fact the one I
: prefer. I sometimes like to illustrate the idea with a different
: example (to take any Balrog preconceptions out of the mix):
: Exploring a strange, alien planet, Art came across a pile of pulpy,
: green-skinned fruit that look remarkably like pears. After a few
: minutes' worry that they might be poisonous, Art threw caution to
: the wind, picked up one of the pears, and bit into it.
: Now, taken on its own, one could claim that the second sentence
: definitively states that the fruit was a pear. But in context, that's
: clearly not the case: the word "pears" in that second sentence
: undoubtedly refers to the mysterious pear-like fruit mentioned
: earlier. It certainly doesn't imply that there was a second pile of
: true pears nearby!
I've always thought the best example comes from Tolkien himself:
"And out of the west there would come at times a great cloud in
the evening, shaped as it were an eagle, with pinions spread to
the north and the south; and slowly it would loom up, blotting
out the sunset, and then uttermost night would fall upon Numenor.
And some of the eagles bore lightning beneath their wings, and
thunder echoed between sea and cloud."
Are the eagles and great clouds the same thing, or are they different
things?
Stephen
Steuard Jensen
<sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> : I sometimes like to illustrate the idea with a different
> : example (to take any Balrog preconceptions out of the mix):
> I've always thought the best example comes from Tolkien himself:
> "And out of the west there would come at times a great cloud in
> the evening, shaped as it were an eagle...
> And some of the eagles bore lightning beneath their wings...
Good example! :) Is that from the "Akalabeth" itself (as I seem to
recall), or from some related story or draft?
Steuard Jensen
ste...@nomail.com
: Steuard Jensen
That is from the Akalabeth itself, as published in "The Silmarillion".
Stephen
Tom & Linda
Why not a combination of the 3, though primarily a combination of 1 and
3? Given the fire from the Balrogs nostrils, the darkness of the mine,
and the chiaroscuro effect (interplay of light and dark, like in oil
paintings) it may have been difficult to see anything clearly in the
area, other than the light from the fire, and the patterns of the light
hitting the background. All you really see is the light... either the
fire or the light as it strikes the background. Since the shadow is
darkness, it isn't really seen.
Given the fire from the Balrog's nostrils - an emanation from a rather
small area - like a light bulb, any shadows behind it, could very well
be a result of skin and bones blocking the light from hitting the
background. Light from a point would be good for creating a crisp edged
shadow if it was blocked by an object. Knowing that Gandalf's staff was
only emanating a faint radiance, that wouldn't be nearly as great a
light source as the fire. It doesn't make sense that the staff created
dual shadows, given the much brighter fire.
I think a decent explanation is that the initial reference (to shadows,
in the paragraph on Pg. 370) was due to the inability to see real wings,
only the light and the shadow pattern caused by the wings, using the
nostril flame as the light source. Real flesh close to the fire would
be obscured by the brightness of the fire.
Then, once it is acknowledged that the shadows were caused by something
blocking the light... the second reference (Pg. 371) is a direct
reference to the Balrog's wings. If the reference was to the shadow,
there would be no reason to repeat the shape of the shadow, since the
shape was already stated. You could have simple called it a shadow.
I vote "real wings", based on the inability to see the wings due to the
chiaroscuro, but acknowledging that the shadow that they cast most
likely had to be the result of solid matter (flesh and bones). But
then... I'm an oil painting kind of guy. Caravaggio rather than Plato.
"Unless I'm missing something"... :)
--Tom
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
bnbeha$17b0$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
Neither example is an accurate comparison. The first fails because there is
a difference between the word 'wing' and 'pear': a pear must be made of pear
fruit, it cannot be any pear-shaped object. But a wing is different: if
something is shaped like a wing, it is a wing. And it does not need to be
functional: the dodo had wings, but could not fly. A plane has wings, but
they're not made of flesh. Even a stone statue can have wings. It's just a
description of a shape. This means that once you call something a wing, then
you might as well consider it to be a wing, unless the description doesn't
fit the shape.
The second example fails for a similar reason: here Tolkien specifically
states that the eagles are actually eagle-shaped clouds. This means that
although they look like eagles, they're not really eagles. But again: wings
are not defined by what substance they're made of, only by what they look
like. In the second example cited, those eagle-shaped clouds would posses
wings; nobody would claim that they don't have wings because they're not
true eagles. They're false eagles with real wings.
So it's impossible for the Balrog *not* to have wings, for the very simple
reason that he is described as having wings. Their substance might be little
more than shadow, but that does not matter.
Jonathan.
ste...@nomail.com
: <ste...@nomail.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
:> I've always thought the best example comes from Tolkien himself:
Which means that the Balrog wings are false wings. The clouds are
later referred to as eagles, and according to you these are false eagles.
The shadow is later referred to as wings, so applying the same logic,
these must be false wings.
: So it's impossible for the Balrog *not* to have wings, for the very simple
: reason that he is described as having wings. Their substance might be little
: more than shadow, but that does not matter.
But your logic says they have "false wings". What does that mean?
Stephen
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
<ste...@nomail.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
bnetiu$27a8$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
No. Do those cloud-eagles have wings or not? Yes, they do. False wings don't
exist. A plastic wing is still real, but a plastic eagle is false. You
should recognize that difference.
> The clouds are
> later referred to as eagles, and according to you these are false eagles.
> The shadow is later referred to as wings, so applying the same logic,
> these must be false wings.
How can a depiction of an eagle have false wings? Either he has wings or has
been mutilated. They can't be false. And I explicitly wrote they had real
wings, did you read that?
>
> : So it's impossible for the Balrog *not* to have wings, for the very
simple
> : reason that he is described as having wings. Their substance might be
little
> : more than shadow, but that does not matter.
>
> But your logic says they have "false wings". What does that mean?
My logic does not say that.
I'll try to explain it to you. After discovering things that look a bit like
pears on that distant planet, a creature is discovered that looks a bit like
a pinguin. But it's not a penguin, ofcourse, because it is not related to
any penguin and inside it's very different. It's a completely alien
creature, but it does have front flippers that are shaped like a penguin's.
Like a penguin's wings, in fact. So a biologist comes along, describes the
aliens and call these appendages wings. They look like wings, even though
they won't carry the creature into the air.
The debate about the question whether or not this alien would have wings,
would be pointless. Because anyone can point to the wings and say: 'there
they are!'. This is actually quite common in biology: the same happens to
terms like 'skeleton', 'palp', 'foot', etc. Creatures have these things
often by virtue of their description. This is not the case for, say, a foot
bone, which is very specifically described. A snail has a foot (I think),
but definitly not a foot bone.
Back to the alien. What if it was discovered that the wings were actually
intricate 3-dimensional projections, visible but without substance? It would
not matter. The alien would have wings consisting of 3-dimensional
projections. They would still be real because the projections would be real,
even though you could not feel them by touch.
So, compare the two questions: 'Is it a penguin?' and 'Is it a wing?'. The
first would be a zoological matter, and very answerable (unless penguins are
polyphyletic, but I doubt that). The second question would be really a
matter of taste. If the wings looked like balloons, then the name probably
should not be used. You could make a case why one term is better than
another. In the case of the Balrog, you could say that the Balrog's shadow
is a better description than its wings, but actually calling it wings seems
very reasonable given the description in The Fellowship of the Ring. Note
that Tolkien does not write about 'the' wings, which would be the logical
term if he was talking about some trick of the light, but 'its' wings, which
implies that the wings are connected to the Balrog, either physically or
magically. Shadows seem to be bonded to the creature.
If you want to state that the Balrog did not have wings, then please
describe why the things Tolkien calls wings are not shaped like wings and
don't deserve the name. I don't think you can, and for me that settles the
debate.
Jonathan.
Ash Wyrd
"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <nos...@nospam.nl> wrote in message
news:bnevuu$ocl$1...@reader11.wxs.nl...
> The debate about the question whether or not this alien would have wings,
> would be pointless. Because anyone can point to the wings and say: 'there
> they are!'. This is actually quite common in biology: the same happens to
> terms like 'skeleton', 'palp', 'foot', etc. Creatures have these things
> often by virtue of their description. This is not the case for, say, a
foot
> bone, which is very specifically described. A snail has a foot (I think),
> but definitly not a foot bone.
>
psudopod [false foot]
Steuard Jensen
[An example I claimed was similar to the Balrog wings description:]
> > : Exploring a strange, alien planet, Art came across a pile of
> > : pulpy, green-skinned fruit that look remarkably like pears.
> > : After a few minutes' worry that they might be poisonous, Art
> > : threw caution to the wind, picked up one of the pears, and bit
> > : into it.
> <ste...@nomail.com> schreef:
> > I've always thought the best example comes from Tolkien himself:
> > "And out of the west there would come at times a great cloud in
> > the evening, shaped as it were an eagle... And some of the
> > eagles bore lightning beneath their wings..."
Quoth "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <nos...@nospam.nl> in article
<bneoq1$fs8$1...@reader11.wxs.nl>:
> Neither example is an accurate comparison. The first fails because
> there is a difference between the word 'wing' and 'pear': a pear
> must be made of pear fruit, it cannot be any pear-shaped object. But
> a wing is different: if something is shaped like a wing, it is a
> wing.
Excellent! You have identified one of the classic stumbling blocks in
the Great Balrog Wing Debate. :) And, to your considerable credit,
you have stated it in clear terms so that people could recognize it
for what it was.
As mentioned in my FAQ entry on Balrog wings (you can find it in the
"Very FAQ" section of my Tolkien Meta-FAQ: http://tolkien.slimy.com/),
many of the most intense debates on this topic took place almost
entirely because different people were using the word "wing" in
different ways without saying so. Roughly speaking, the "pro-wingers"
used "wing" to mean "anything with the shape of a wing", while the
"no-wingers" used it in this context to mean "a part of a creature's
body made of the same bone and flesh as the creature itself". (As I
said, those are just rough definitions; I think they are enough to
give the general idea of each position.)
It was an absolute revelation when someone finally recognized that
despite the intense argument about the question "Do they have wings?",
most people on _both_ sides of the debate had the same basic mental
image of what those "wings" were. I championed that point rather
intensely, and eventually most of the prime people on both sides of
the debate more or less agreed with the consensus statement in the
FAQ.
> It's just a description of a shape. This means that once you call
> something a wing, then you might as well consider it to be a wing,
> unless the description doesn't fit the shape.
Again, that's a perfectly good definition. It's just important to
understand that some people naturally use a more limited definition
(at least in this context), which is also perfectly good. :)
To make up another example, I seem to recall that there are some
species of moth (or butterfly?) with markings on the back of their
wings that look very much like eyes. There is a sense in which it is
perfectly sensible to say "These moths have eyes on the back of their
wings." But there is also a sense in which that statement would be
entirely misleading. The former sense corresponds more or less to the
use of the word "wing" that you prefer in the Balrog debate, the
latter to the use that most "no-wingers" prefer.
The reason that I prefer the more limited definition is that it simply
matches my own use of the English language more closely. If a
naturalist came up to me and said, "I have discovered a new species of
primate that has wings!", I would be rather disappointed if the
"wings" turned out to be a wing-shaped color pattern in the fur of its
back. :) You might have been more clever in that situation and asked,
"What kind of wings?" (and for that matter, I might have, too: a
primate with the "familiar" sort of wings would be very unlikely).
But I don't think it would be unreasonable for someone to get excited
when they heard that naturalist's claim. (Didn't carnival freak shows
often draw people in with similar misleading statements that were
technically correct?)
> So it's impossible for the Balrog *not* to have wings, for the very
> simple reason that he is described as having wings. Their substance
> might be little more than shadow, but that does not matter.
For the record, it seemed to matter to Peter Jackson: he said, "It
says right here that the Balrog has wings." And sure enough, the
Balrog in his movie has at least partially "physical" wings: you can
see the bones (it's not entirely clear if there's any sort of flesh or
leather spread between them, though I personally feel that a Balrog
with _skeletal_ wings would be _really_ bizarre :) ).
Or, to respond in a slightly different way, I think _everyone_ would
agree that there was some feature associated with the Balrog that
looked like wings. After all, Tolkien said so, twice. :) Thus, it
wouldn't be very interesting to discuss that topic. Therefore, when
people ask "Do Balrogs have wings?", they _must_ be asking a more
specific question, so answering the more general question isn't
particularly useful (and can even be confusing). :)
Steuard Jensen
Steuard Jensen
> If you want to state that the Balrog did not have wings, then please
> describe why the things Tolkien calls wings are not shaped like
> wings and don't deserve the name. I don't think you can, and for me
> that settles the debate.
I've just gone into this in depth in another message, but I'll give a
brief answer here, too. :) There are obviously different definitions
of the word "wing": you prefer a definition that is very general and
refers primarily to shape, while (in this context) I prefer a
definition that has a more limited sense (more of less "an intrinsic
part of the creature's body, made of the same general materials").
Both definitions are perfectly good! :)
The fact is, I find the question "Do Balrogs have wings?" using the
general definition that you prefer to be both uninteresting and
trivially answered. ("Yes: Tolkien says so twice.") I find the same
question using the more limited definition to be of considerably
greater interest, and less trivially answered. How would you
recommend that I ask it? (And for that matter, what is your answer?)
Steuard Jensen
A Tsar Is Born
I submit that in evidence.
(Ah, but of what....?)
Tsar Parmathule
coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<Atsarisb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Wasn't there a song, "If I Had the Wings of a Balrog" ?
>
> I submit that in evidence.
theres the old saying -a wing and a bier-
ste...@nomail.com
: <ste...@nomail.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
: bnetiu$27a8$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
The question is not do the cloud-eagle have wings or not. The question
is, are the cloud-eagles eagles or not. Forget about the wings.
One passage basically says "clouds like eagles", from which you
concluded the eagles were false eagles. The other passage says
"shadow like wings", so the conclusion should be false wings.
: How can a depiction of an eagle have false wings? Either he has wings or has
: been mutilated. They can't be false. And I explicitly wrote they had real
: wings, did you read that?
As I said, this has nothing to do with the wings of the eagle shaped
clouds. Are the clouds eagles or not? Is the shadow wings or not?
That is the question.
Stephen
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
87Fmb.59$_4.2...@news.uchicago.edu...
> Quoth "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <nos...@nospam.nl> in article
> <bnevuu$ocl$1...@reader11.wxs.nl>:
> > If you want to state that the Balrog did not have wings, then please
> > describe why the things Tolkien calls wings are not shaped like
> > wings and don't deserve the name. I don't think you can, and for me
> > that settles the debate.
>
> I've just gone into this in depth in another message, but I'll give a
> brief answer here, too. :) There are obviously different definitions
> of the word "wing": you prefer a definition that is very general and
> refers primarily to shape, while (in this context) I prefer a
> definition that has a more limited sense (more of less "an intrinsic
> part of the creature's body, made of the same general materials").
> Both definitions are perfectly good! :)
We could debate about what definition is best, but it really doesn't matter
once you've agreed on what the Balrog actually looks like and what it is
made of. I think the text strongly implies that the shadows are connected to
the creature, perhaps even part of it. In that case, even wings made of
shadow could very well be "of the same general materials" and "an intrinsic
part of the creature's body".
>
> The fact is, I find the question "Do Balrogs have wings?" using the
> general definition that you prefer to be both uninteresting and
> trivially answered. ("Yes: Tolkien says so twice.") I find the same
> question using the more limited definition to be of considerably
> greater interest, and less trivially answered. How would you
> recommend that I ask it? (And for that matter, what is your answer?)
Well, as given above, I'd say he does have wings, for the following reason:
The Balrog is described as surrounded by shadows, which are perhaps more
significant than the creature itself. Its own shape is vaguely described.
This leads me to conclude that the shadows, like the flames, are connected
to the creature itself. The wings are not described as 'the' wings, which
would be appropriate if they were some trick of the light, that are separate
from the Balrog. They are 'its' wings, so they belong to the Balrog.
Jonathan.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
<ste...@nomail.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
bnfj83$2sd6$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
...
> One passage basically says "clouds like eagles", from which you
> concluded the eagles were false eagles. The other passage says
> "shadow like wings", so the conclusion should be false wings.
These are not comparable. In fact, they are even different linguistic
constructions. The first are clouds that are like eagles, but the second
things you describe are wings like shadows: you can also write this as
'shadow-like wings' or shadowlike wings'. Tolkien doesn't write the same as
you do, however: 'the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings'. So
in your terminology, they would be 'shadows like wings', but then again, I'm
not here to do your debating for you...
So they're made of shadow, everyone seems to agree on that. But why can
these shadows not be called wings, like I would say a stone gargoyle has
wings? Can you describe a creature that can be seen to have wings, but does
not actually have them? I think such a creature is logically impossible.
>
> : How can a depiction of an eagle have false wings? Either he has wings or
has
> : been mutilated. They can't be false. And I explicitly wrote they had
real
> : wings, did you read that?
>
> As I said, this has nothing to do with the wings of the eagle shaped
> clouds.
What you're defending is this: because the eagles are not true eagles, they
don't exist. That is a ludicrous statement, because what does exist are
eagle-shaped clouds. And an true eagle can, by definition, not be made of
water vapor. A wing, however, can be made of anything, especially in a
fantasy novel.
> Are the clouds eagles or not?
The eagles are only depictions of eagles, but the wings are true wings.
You're not really introducing anything new: I've discussed this extensively.
> Is the shadow wings or not?
Yes, it is. The shadow forms the Balrog's wings.
> That is the question.
Answered. That's easy, right?
Jonathan.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
The second position is problematic because it requires one to know what the
Balrog is made of. This is not described in the book, quite the contrary:
it's surrounded by flames and shadows which might or might not be part of it
somehow. So logically, people cannot claim to know the exact limits of its
body. Stating that shadows are surely no part of it just requires a leap of
faith which is not based on the text. This makes it a bit more complicated
than a question about the definition of wings.
>
> It was an absolute revelation when someone finally recognized that
> despite the intense argument about the question "Do they have wings?",
> most people on _both_ sides of the debate had the same basic mental
> image of what those "wings" were. I championed that point rather
> intensely, and eventually most of the prime people on both sides of
> the debate more or less agreed with the consensus statement in the
> FAQ.
I think what you described has happened in this thread as well.
>
> > It's just a description of a shape. This means that once you call
> > something a wing, then you might as well consider it to be a wing,
> > unless the description doesn't fit the shape.
>
> Again, that's a perfectly good definition. It's just important to
> understand that some people naturally use a more limited definition
> (at least in this context), which is also perfectly good. :)
But actors who dress up as, say, angels have wings as well, don't they?
Imagine standing in front of someone dressed up like that and saying: 'you
don't have wings!' It would look rather silly, so I think the narrow
definition doesn't do justice to common usage of the word.
> To make up another example, I seem to recall that there are some
> species of moth (or butterfly?) with markings on the back of their
> wings that look very much like eyes. There is a sense in which it is
> perfectly sensible to say "These moths have eyes on the back of their
> wings." But there is also a sense in which that statement would be
> entirely misleading. The former sense corresponds more or less to the
> use of the word "wing" that you prefer in the Balrog debate, the
> latter to the use that most "no-wingers" prefer.
Yes, that seems reasonable, even though I'd use a narrower definition in the
case of eyes.
>
> The reason that I prefer the more limited definition is that it simply
> matches my own use of the English language more closely...
I prefer the broad definition because it makes more sense in practice. If
Icarus did not have wings, then how did he fly? But in the Balrog's case, I
believe that the text actually refers to two separate parts of his body that
look like wings and are connected to the creature itself. I think the
problem lies with people not accepting that a shadow might be alive, being
as much an extension of a body like a hand or a leg. This is ofcourse,
impossible in reality, but Balrogs don't really exist anyway.
>
> > So it's impossible for the Balrog *not* to have wings, for the very
> > simple reason that he is described as having wings. Their substance
> > might be little more than shadow, but that does not matter.
>
> For the record, it seemed to matter to Peter Jackson: he said, "It
> says right here that the Balrog has wings." And sure enough, the
> Balrog in his movie has at least partially "physical" wings: you can
> see the bones (it's not entirely clear if there's any sort of flesh or
> leather spread between them, though I personally feel that a Balrog
> with _skeletal_ wings would be _really_ bizarre :) ).
If I were a director, I would have filmed the sequence more from the point
of view of the fellowship and made the Balrog's outline very unclear. As for
its wings, I'd try to have made shadows of wings without showing what
actually was making these shadows.
>
> Or, to respond in a slightly different way, I think _everyone_ would
> agree that there was some feature associated with the Balrog that
> looked like wings. After all, Tolkien said so, twice. :) Thus, it
> wouldn't be very interesting to discuss that topic. Therefore, when
> people ask "Do Balrogs have wings?", they _must_ be asking a more
> specific question, so answering the more general question isn't
> particularly useful (and can even be confusing). :)
Shouldn't the question be formulated differently then? It seems like the
question 'Do Balrogs have wings?' is answered by 'yes', but immediately
followed by: 'what are the Balrog's wings made of, and are they still there
after he has fallen into the water and his fire has died?'
The people that claim the Balrog does not have wings, have the problem that
both Tolkien and those on the other side of the debate still talk about
those wings. It would really be better if that part of the discussion were
settled. The fact that Tolkien talks about wings, is an indication that
whatever he's talking about falls within his definition of the word, which
should be an important notion. I think that the debate should be about the
question whether the wings are tangible or not; other options are
contradicted by the text.
Jonathan.
ste...@nomail.com
: Imagine standing in front of someone dressed up like that and saying: 'you
: don't have wings!' It would look rather silly, so I think the narrow
: definition doesn't do justice to common usage of the word.
And if they were carrying a stuffed animal shaped like an eagle
it whould be pretty silly to say 'you don't have an eagle'.
Stephen
A Tsar Is Born
"coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mair_fheal-25...@c130.ppp.tsoft.com...
In a balrog's case, surely that's "a wing and pyre"
ste...@nomail.com
: <ste...@nomail.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
: bnfj83$2sd6$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
: ...
:> One passage basically says "clouds like eagles", from which you
:> concluded the eagles were false eagles. The other passage says
:> "shadow like wings", so the conclusion should be false wings.
: These are not comparable. In fact, they are even different linguistic
: constructions. The first are clouds that are like eagles, but the second
: things you describe are wings like shadows: you can also write this as
: 'shadow-like wings' or shadowlike wings'. Tolkien doesn't write the same as
: you do, however: 'the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings'. So
: in your terminology, they would be 'shadows like wings', but then again, I'm
: not here to do your debating for you...
They are not wings like shadows. It is a shadow like two vast wings,
just as the clouds are shaped like eagles.
"the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings"
"... shadow ..... .. ....... ... like ... .... wings"
There is only one shadow, and it is like two vast wings.
There are no wings mentioned, so why assume there are
any wings?
: So they're made of shadow, everyone seems to agree on that. But why can
: these shadows not be called wings, like I would say a stone gargoyle has
: wings? Can you describe a creature that can be seen to have wings, but does
: not actually have them? I think such a creature is logically impossible.
You are assuming that wings exist when none have been mentioned.
A shadow has been mentioned. If I was wearing a cloak and it
cast a shadow that looked like wings, would you claim I had wings?
: What you're defending is this: because the eagles are not true eagles, they
: don't exist. That is a ludicrous statement, because what does exist are
: eagle-shaped clouds. And an true eagle can, by definition, not be made of
: water vapor. A wing, however, can be made of anything, especially in a
: fantasy novel.
I am not saying that the cloud eagles do not exist, I am saying that
they are not eagles. Likewise, the shadow wings exist, but they
are not wings. Why can a wing be made of anything, but an eagle not,
especially in a fantasy novel? Where is your evidence that wings
can be made of anything in Middle-Earth?
: The eagles are only depictions of eagles, but the wings are true wings.
: You're not really introducing anything new: I've discussed this extensively.
But you have not justified your answer. You have two very similar
passages, both of the form "X like Y', but in one you declare that
Y is not a real Y, but in the other Y is a real Y.
:> Is the shadow wings or not?
: Yes, it is. The shadow forms the Balrog's wings.
:> That is the question.
: Answered. That's easy, right?
: Jonathan.
You have yet to explain why you answered them this way. You
are assuming Balrog's have wings in order to conclude that
the shadow forms the Balrog's wings. If I assume that Eagles
could be made of clouds, than I can conclude that Eagles
bearing lightning attacked Numenor.
Stephen
Henriette
> In rec.arts.books.tolkien Jonathan v.d. Sluis <nos...@nospam.nl> wrote:
>
> : <ste...@nomail.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
> : bnfj83$2sd6$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
> : ...
> :> One passage basically says "clouds like eagles", from which you
> :> concluded the eagles were false eagles. The other passage says
> :> "shadow like wings", so the conclusion should be false wings.
>
> : These are not comparable. In fact, they are even different linguistic
> : constructions. The first are clouds that are like eagles, but the second
> : things you describe are wings like shadows: you can also write this as
> : 'shadow-like wings' or shadowlike wings'. Tolkien doesn't write the same as
> : you do, however: 'the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings'. So
> : in your terminology, they would be 'shadows like wings', but then again, I'm
> : not here to do your debating for you...
>
> They are not wings like shadows. It is a shadow like two vast wings,
> just as the clouds are shaped like eagles.
>
> "the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings"
> "... shadow ..... .. ....... ... like ... .... wings"
>
> There is only one shadow, and it is like two vast wings.
> There are no wings mentioned, so why assume there are
> any wings?
>
discussion)
Stephen, I am with you, even when your opponent is my compatriot. (Hi
Jonathan, welkom!)
Henriette
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
<ste...@nomail.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
bnha18$1as8$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
> There is only one shadow, and it is like two vast wings.
> There are no wings mentioned, so why assume there are
> any wings?
Hey, don't blame me for your linguistical errors. You referred to the
'shadow like wings' in plural, which is the wrong grammar for the point
you're trying to make. You should have written 'shadows like wings' or 'a
shadow like wings', but you wrote:
<<One passage basically says "clouds like eagles", from which you concluded
the eagles were false eagles. The other passage says "shadow like wings",
so the conclusion should be false wings.>>
That's a confusing sentence, but I was able to deduce your intention. The
answer to your question:
Because these shadows are later referred to as the Balrog's wings.
Therefore, they obviously fit in Tolkien's definition of wings, even though
they might be made of shadow. There is no difference in being 'like' wings
and being wings: because the shadows look like wings, they are wings.
>
> : So they're made of shadow, everyone seems to agree on that. But why can
> : these shadows not be called wings, like I would say a stone gargoyle has
> : wings? Can you describe a creature that can be seen to have wings, but
does
> : not actually have them? I think such a creature is logically impossible.
>
> You are assuming that wings exist when none have been mentioned.
'...its wings were spread from wall to wall'. So it does have wings, that's
as clear as anything. The debate really isn't about the question whether or
not the Balrog has wings, but whether they are like a bird's wings: tangible
and solid, or intangible. If the Balrog did not have wings, Tolkien should
have written 'the wings' instead of 'its wings'. Talking about 'its wings'
when the Balrog did not have any would have been sloppy writing. I'll be the
first to admit that it is very unclear what these wings look like or what
they're made of, and as Steuard Jensen points out, I think we both have a
very similar mental picture.
> A shadow has been mentioned. If I was wearing a cloak and it
> cast a shadow that looked like wings, would you claim I had wings?
Yes, I think I would, especially if this was your intention. If you were
playing dracula and trying to achieve such an effect on stage, I would say
that the shadows gave you wings, and you possess what you have been given.
>
> : What you're defending is this: because the eagles are not true eagles,
they
> : don't exist. That is a ludicrous statement, because what does exist are
> : eagle-shaped clouds. And an true eagle can, by definition, not be made
of
> : water vapor. A wing, however, can be made of anything, especially in a
> : fantasy novel.
>
> I am not saying that the cloud eagles do not exist, I am saying that
> they are not eagles.
Agreed.
> Likewise, the shadow wings exist, but they
> are not wings.
I disagree with that, because a wing can be made of anything. There's no
such thing as a false wing: a plastic eagle is false, a plastic wing is
real.
> Why can a wing be made of anything, but an eagle not,
> especially in a fantasy novel? Where is your evidence that wings
> can be made of anything in Middle-Earth?
There is evidence both in and out of Tolkien's book. Here are two reasons:
- The Balrog has wings: Tolkien talks about 'its' wings, so they are there.
Yet he only talks about shadows. This means that the wings probably consist
of shadow. This is an indication that wings can be made of shadow in Middle
Earth.
- Wings are not bound to one substance. An airplane has wings of metal and
the wings of a fly are very different from the wings of a bird. Buildings
have wings, and even sanitary towels with wings have been observed. So a
wing doesn't even require a creature. Why should their substance be limited
in Middle Earth?
>
> : The eagles are only depictions of eagles, but the wings are true wings.
> : You're not really introducing anything new: I've discussed this
extensively.
>
> But you have not justified your answer. You have two very similar
> passages, both of the form "X like Y', but in one you declare that
> Y is not a real Y, but in the other Y is a real Y.
I'll explain the difference for the last time, but you're really trying my
patience here, because it should be clear by now (I think lurkers have long
left this debate). Any future repetitions of this question will be answered
by my copy/paste functions. Eagles are defined by what substance they are
made of, wings are not. Therefore, an eagle made of steam is not a real
eagle, but a wing made of steam, or shadow, or paperclips, or anger, or
lightning, or whatever you can think of, is still a wing.
>
> :> Is the shadow wings or not?
>
> : Yes, it is. The shadow forms the Balrog's wings.
>
> :> That is the question.
>
> : Answered. That's easy, right?
>
> : Jonathan.
>
> You have yet to explain why you answered them this way.
Now I have. And please take the time to understand the answer, instead of
again claiming I did not answer. You're obviously not satisfied with the
answer, but one cannot please all the people all the time, so that's not a
reason for me to make much more of it. If you're having such problems with
my definitions, please read Steuard Jensen's messages, which are very
sensible, and better seem to defend the point you perhaps want to make (if
any).
>You
> are assuming Balrog's have wings in order to conclude that
> the shadow forms the Balrog's wings. If I assume that Eagles
> could be made of clouds, than I can conclude that Eagles
> bearing lightning attacked Numenor.
That is true, with that assumption then you can say that eagles attacked
Numenor. Bravo, you've just discovered Wittgenstein.
Jonathan.
ste...@nomail.com
: <ste...@nomail.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
: bnha18$1as8$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
"And some of the eagles bore lightning beneath their wings,",
so there were Eagles at Numenor, that's as clear as anything.
Yet for some reason, you claim that the Eagles that attacked
Numenor were not eagles.
:> A shadow has been mentioned. If I was wearing a cloak and it
:> cast a shadow that looked like wings, would you claim I had wings?
: Yes, I think I would, especially if this was your intention. If you were
: playing dracula and trying to achieve such an effect on stage, I would say
: that the shadows gave you wings, and you possess what you have been given.
Well, then we simply have to agree to disagree. If you claim
a man with a cloak has wings, then your standard for declaring
something to have wings is totally different than mine.
Having a shadow that appears like wings is not the same thing
as having wings. Dracula did not have wings. He had a cape,
and often the cape has wing like qualities, but it was just a cape.
Stephen
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
bnjg88$9pl$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
Ofcourse one could shift the definition and claim that eagles don't have to
be made of flesh, but I don't think that's reasonable, so I'd say there that
what looked like eagles weren't really eagles. But there, too, Tolkien
stretches the definition and calls those clouds eagles, so there is little
room to argue. In the end, everyone knows what the word eagle means in this
context; whatever they were made of, they were definitely present. The same
goes for the wings: whatever they were made of, they were certainly there.
The fact that the same doesn't go for the wings is because of the different
definition of a wing, which does not depend on the stuff of which it is
made.
A workable compromise in the eagles' case would be: there were eagles
present, but they were not of Gwaihir's kin. A more philosophical approach
would state that there were only representations of eagles present, which
can be linguistically cut short to 'eagles'. The next question would be: can
a wing be represented? Yes, but only in a picture. A three-dimensional
representation of a wing is a wing, just like a three-dimensional
representation of a cube is a cube. You cannot make a false statue of a cube
that is a false cube: either it is a cube or not.
So following that line of reasoning, the next question would be whether the
Balrog's shadows are true shapes or just pictures. That's difficult, because
they seem to fall somewhere in between. The Balrog is obviously associated
with shadow, so its shadows seem to be part of the creature itself, rather
than just a consequence of light coming from a certain direction. I made
this point several times, and neither you nor Steuard seem to dispute it. If
the shadows are part of the balrog, then why would wing-shaped shadows not
be part of it? And if a creature has wing-shaped parts, why should these not
be called its wings? This is, in my opinion, the closest and most rigid
interpretation of the description of the Balrog. Personally I like the movie
version better, and it might be what Tolkien actually had in mind, but
strictly the text does not describe the movie-balrog without some
assumptions.
You're demanding of me that I use the same kind of definition for every
object. But that's a ridiculous demand: it's obvious that not everything
that looks like a flower should be considered a flower, otherwise mimicry
would be a senseless term. Yet on the other hand, it is impossible to think
of an object that looks exactly like a mirror but isn't a mirror: such an
object is a philosophical impossibility. You seem to think that this
difference somehow represents an inconsistency on my part, but it's actually
a difference in definitions that most people learn at a very young age. I
would like to agree to disagree with you about the Balrog, but you have to
admit that one object can be defined only by the way it looks, while another
by what's inside, or even a more intangible difference - like the difference
between a prince and a man. Not every object is defined using the same
parameters. Am I really telling something you don't know?
>
>
> :> A shadow has been mentioned. If I was wearing a cloak and it
> :> cast a shadow that looked like wings, would you claim I had wings?
>
> : Yes, I think I would, especially if this was your intention. If you were
> : playing dracula and trying to achieve such an effect on stage, I would
say
> : that the shadows gave you wings, and you possess what you have been
given.
>
> Well, then we simply have to agree to disagree. If you claim
> a man with a cloak has wings, then your standard for declaring
> something to have wings is totally different than mine.
You could have concluded that many messages ago. If you only want to say
'The Balrog did not have wings made of Balrog-flesh', then why did you not
say so before? Steuard Jensen came with a similar point much earlier.
> Having a shadow that appears like wings is not the same thing
> as having wings. Dracula did not have wings. He had a cape,
> and often the cape has wing like qualities, but it was just a cape.
Icarus had wings, and they did not differ much in shape from a cape held at
the tips. But when we're talking about an interpretation that tries to
reason from the text itself rather than rely on personal definitions, the
following question has to be asked: were the wing-like shadows on the Balrog
shaped in such a way that Tolkien called them wings? It doesn't matter a bit
what I call a man with a cape or whatever narrower definition you would
prefer, if you try to deduce original meaning or intent. Subjective factors
can never be eliminated, but neither should my or your definition be used as
a measuring stick.
I can only conclude that Tolkien considered the Balrog's shadows to be
within his definition of wings. In addition, a pretty good case can be made
that the Balrog had actually tangible wings that came into view after the
fellowship saw the shadows. From a distance, they could have been simply too
dark to see. But there is no piece of text that in any way suggests the
Balrog lacked wings, only the contrary: the text explicitly says the monster
possessed wings. It's just unclear about what they looked like. That's a
long way from saying they weren't there, and actually I don't see why anyone
would try to argue that other than as a personal preference. If you like
wingless Balrog, fine, but I don't think it's a logical conclusion in any
way.
Jonathan.
Steuard Jensen
> Steuard Jensen <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> schreef:
> > There are obviously different definitions of the word "wing": you
> > prefer a definition that is very general and refers primarily to
> > shape, while (in this context) I prefer a definition that has a
> > more limited sense (more of less "an intrinsic part of the
> > creature's body, made of the same general materials"). Both
> > definitions are perfectly good! :)
> We could debate about what definition is best, but it really doesn't
> matter once you've agreed on what the Balrog actually looks like and
> what it is made of.
Absolutely, I agree. In the end, the simple question "Do Balrogs have
wings?" is probably too ill-defined for productive discussion
anyway. :) Far better would be to ask "What is the composition and
structure of a Balrog?", but that's too dry to capture the interest of
the original question. Ah well... as long as we can keep the
discussion civil and move it in productive directions fairly quickly,
I think we'll be okay.
> I think the text strongly implies that the shadows are connected to
> the creature, perhaps even part of it.
I have that same impression: I think the shadows were almost certainly
a "part" of the Balrog, whatever that means.
> In that case, even wings made of shadow could very well be "of the
> same general materials" and "an intrinsic part of the creature's
> body".
I think there's still room for all sorts of definitions even here (and
I agree that your statement is true for at least some of them). For
example, even if the "shadow" is a permanant part of the Balrog,
should one necessarily call it part of the Balrog's "body"? Maybe,
maybe not: the language wasn't designed to deal with weird
supernatural shadow-stuff, after all, and a lot of people would
hesitate to use the word "body" that broadly.
And for that matter, what does "intrinsic part" mean? I think most
people would agree that the shadow was always present around the
Balrog (or at least always "available" to it) (or would they?), but
there is certainly considerable disagreement about whether it always
had a wing-like shape. Personally, I suspect that the Balrog could
manipulate that shadow-stuff into pretty much any shape that it wanted
to, and that the "two vast wings" were one example of that (maybe the
spreading, engulfing darkness was meant to intimidate its opponents).
That's a large part of the reason that I'm hesitant to say, "Yes,
Balrogs have wings": I suspect that their "shadows" might often have
looked very different--maybe like a vast dark pillar, or a descending
umbrella, or a long trailing mane or tail, or whatever. If the
"shadow" were as amorphous as all that, then in fact I would lean
strongly toward saying, "No, Balrogs do _not_ have wings, though their
'shadows' could look like wings at times."
But in the end, we just don't have enough information to know if the
"shadow" was amorphous or permanantly wing-like. So the moment we've
pinned down our definitions enough to ask a meaningful and non-trivial
question, we're no longer able to answer it at all. Pretty annoying,
that. :) But it can be fun to search for an answer anyway.
Steuard Jensen
Henriette
(snip)
> Having a shadow that appears like wings is not the same thing
> as having wings.
This cannot be repeated enough.
Henriette
coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
held...@hotmail.com (Henriette) wrote:
does a stealth bomber hae wings
shadowy wings
wingy shadows
shadows
or john travolta playing yet another annoying prat
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
Henriette <held...@hotmail.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
be50318e.03102...@posting.google.com...
> ste...@nomail.com wrote in message
news:<bnjg88$9pl$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
> (snip)
> > Having a shadow that appears like wings is not the same thing
> > as having wings.
Unless the shadows are part of the creature itself. Then the shadows form
the creature's wings. Who knows what a monster might look like. Have you
never played D&D?
>
> This cannot be repeated enough.
But it's wrong (case in point: the Balrog), so I wouldn't repeat it too
often.
Jonathan.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
Is there a point in the story where the shadow turns into another shape,
like claws, or just disappears? I can't find anything that suggests the
shadows take on a shape other than wings.
> Personally, I suspect that the Balrog could
> manipulate that shadow-stuff into pretty much any shape that it wanted
> to, and that the "two vast wings" were one example of that (maybe the
> spreading, engulfing darkness was meant to intimidate its opponents).
What makes you suspect that?
>
> That's a large part of the reason that I'm hesitant to say, "Yes,
> Balrogs have wings": I suspect that their "shadows" might often have
> looked very different--maybe like a vast dark pillar, or a descending
> umbrella, or a long trailing mane or tail, or whatever. If the
> "shadow" were as amorphous as all that, then in fact I would lean
> strongly toward saying, "No, Balrogs do _not_ have wings, though their
> 'shadows' could look like wings at times."
>
> But in the end, we just don't have enough information to know if the
> "shadow" was amorphous or permanantly wing-like.
Yes, we do. The text makes it quite clear what shape they have, and if that
doesn't suit a certain definition of a wing, then that definition isn't
applicable for The Lord of the Rings. We're not comparing personal
definitions, but trying to ascertain the meaning of a text. That means that
one definition might just be unsuitable.
Words gain and lose meanings - that's why the Oxford English Dictionary (on
which Tolkien also worked for a short time) was conceived. The meaning of a
word can only be deduced from its context, and that definitely applies here,
since we have no other clues about Balrogs. The Balrog spreads its wings, so
it has wings one way or the other. I really don't see the problem in
admitting that. Ofcourse it's imaginable that he only grows them/creates
them as shadows for this scene, but why? Isn't that an overly complicated
interpretation when there are other interpretations which fit every word of
the text? Below, I try to give an interpretation that analyzes the text in
such a way that the wings as used in the movies become the most logical
depiction of the Balrog (never mind the horns or the lava).
> So the moment we've
> pinned down our definitions enough to ask a meaningful and non-trivial
> question, we're no longer able to answer it at all. Pretty annoying,
> that. :) But it can be fun to search for an answer anyway.
Well, here's a different interpretation, based not just on the sentecnes
where the word 'wings' appears. All fragments are from the last two
paragraphs of chapter V of The Fellowship of the Ring.
When the fellowship first sees the Balrog, it's outline is unclear: 'What it
was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which
was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater...' Now, one would expect
that this outline becomes clearer once the creature has reached the
Fellowship. But this is, for some reason, not the case. Some details do
become visible, however: 'its streaming mane kindled, and blazed behind it.
In its right hand was a blade like a stabbing tongue of fire; in its left it
held a whip of many thongs.' It's obvious why these things are visible:
they're burning, and should obviously stand out in the darkness.
Here's the really confusing thing about the text, aside from the 'maybe
man-shape', no descriptions of the non-burning parts of the Balrog are
given. Yet he suddenly has a hand, which is a step further from the 'maybe
man-shape'. Nostrils are also introduced before having been described: 'Fire
came from its nostrils', as if the nostrils could only be seen because of
the fire. All this is not unlikely, because such stark constrasts in
darkness and light always make vision difficult: eyes cannot adjust to it.
Because of this, the balrog is mostly seen, and its appearance deduced,
through it's shadow. Even when it's standing right in front of Gandalf, it's
still described as a shadow in general: 'From out of the shadow a red sword
leaped flaming'. Specific parts are first hinted at, and then literally
mentioned, like the hands. First it's a vague man-shape, which siggests
hands, later there are true hands. This is exactly how the wings are
introduced. First, only their shadow is seen, but when the Balrog draws
itself up to full height, it suddenly spreads its wings, perhaps
delibarately bringing them into full view to dwarf the wizard. Because of
the fact that the wings are described in the same way as the rest of its
body, they're probably just as real as the other parts. The wings don't
carry flames or burn themselves, so they look like shadows. So Tolkien came
to the description: because there are wing-like shadows, it is suspected
that there are true, tangible wings. And this suspicion is confirmed when
the Balrog spreads its wings.
So I think the buildup of the Balrog scene could point to a Balrog with
wings, made from the same substance as the rest of its body. The whole
creature is described indirectly: the text never says it has legs, and it
could be hopping around on a single leg. Still I've yet to read an argument
that a Balrog with two legs is somehow untrue to Tolkien. The legs are
mostly deduced because they are first suggested ('of man-shape maybe') and
then used (it leaped across the fissure', 'it stepped forward'). The same
goes for the hands, feet ('Right at the Balrog's feet it broke', but when
were we ever told the Balrog had feet?) and the wings, too.
Either that or the shadows themselves are the wings. Still there is no way
the text describes a Balrog without wings. A wingless Balrog is, in my
opinion, purely a matter of personal taste, like a dark-skinned Frodo or
Orcs who actually mean well but are simply misunderstood.
Jonathan.
ste...@nomail.com
: Balrogs have wings": I suspect that their "shadows" might often have
: looked very different--maybe like a vast dark pillar, or a descending
: umbrella, or a long trailing mane or tail, or whatever. If the
: "shadow" were as amorphous as all that, then in fact I would lean
: strongly toward saying, "No, Balrogs do _not_ have wings, though their
: 'shadows' could look like wings at times."
There are some octopuses that apparently can mimic other
sea creatures, such as sea snakes, flounders and rays.
When mimicking rays, the octopus shapes its tentacles like
the wings of a ray. Claiming that octopuses therefore have
wings is just silly.
Stephen
Michelle J. Haines
>
> Unless the shadows are part of the creature itself. Then the shadows form
> the creature's wings. Who knows what a monster might look like. Have you
> never played D&D?
Especially in a creature made of "shadow and flame".
Michelle
Flutist
--
In my heart. By my side.
Never apart. AP with Pride!
Katrina Marie (10/19/96)
Xander Ryan (09/22/98 - 02/23/99)
Gareth Xander (07/17/00) Zachary Mitchell
Theona Alexis (06/03/03) (01/12/94, fostered 09/05/01 - 07/23/03)
ste...@nomail.com
: In article <bnllqg$c2n$1...@reader08.wxs.nl>, nos...@nospam.nl says...
:>
:> Unless the shadows are part of the creature itself. Then the shadows form
:> the creature's wings. Who knows what a monster might look like. Have you
:> never played D&D?
: Especially in a creature made of "shadow and flame".
: Michelle
: Flutist
It is reasonable to conclude that *if* a creature made of "shadow and flame"
had wings, then its wings would be made of "shadow and flame". But that
is no reason to conclude that a creature made of "shadow and flame"
has wings.
In any case, the Balrog was quite substantial. It was subject
to gravity, it could physically strangle, it could be hewn,
it broke the mountain side when it fell. It was not some
wispy, ephemeral, substanceless creature like shadow and flame,
but something very solid and physical.
Stephen
Michelle J. Haines
says...
>
> In any case, the Balrog was quite substantial. It was subject
> to gravity, it could physically strangle, it could be hewn,
> it broke the mountain side when it fell. It was not some
> wispy, ephemeral, substanceless creature like shadow and flame,
> but something very solid and physical.
I don't disagree that it was substantial.
And I had a couple other points to make, but I don't have my book
right next to me, got a nursing baby, and I'm making pattern blocks
for a math lesson -- I'd like to check on a couple things before
making those points, so I don't do it from fault memory and Baby
Brain, if that's OK with everyone.
Well, and even if it's not, I suppose. Not like you can say, "Hey,
no. Don't press that send button yet, write that post now!" :) At
least, not and make me actually do it.
ste...@nomail.com
: a "part" of the Balrog, whatever that means.
Why is that? Was Ungoliant's Unlight part of her, or was it
just something she exuded? In both cases we have a creature
that seems to producace palpable darkness. Is the darkness
part of the creature in both cases, or not? What is it in the
text that suggests one interpretation over another.
Stephen
AR
> It is reasonable to conclude that *if* a creature made of "shadow and flame"
> had wings, then its wings would be made of "shadow and flame". But that
> is no reason to conclude that a creature made of "shadow and flame"
> has wings.
>
> In any case, the Balrog was quite substantial. It was subject
> to gravity, it could physically strangle, it could be hewn,
> it broke the mountain side when it fell. It was not some
> wispy, ephemeral, substanceless creature like shadow and flame,
> but something very solid and physical.
>
I know this issue has been debated ad infinitum so this point may have
been brought up before. People discuss Balrogs like they are a
species of animal indigenous to middle earth, like the Mumakil or even
the Troll. They are not. They were spirits of fire, and they were
Maiar. As such thier physical form is not fixed as those of the
Kelvar (animals). I think different Balrogs may have very different
appearances depending on their particular expression of the element
fire. Some may have had wings of fire, some may have had wings of
shadow and flame, some may have had had more substantial, fleshy wings
that were on fire and some may have had no wings at all. The main
point here is that they do not all have to be physically similar since
they are not a species of animal but spirits of flame.
AR
Steuard Jensen
> Steuard Jensen <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> : I have that same impression: I think the shadows were almost
> : certainly a "part" of the Balrog, whatever that means.
> Why is that? Was Ungoliant's Unlight part of her, or was it
> just something she exuded?
The latter, I agree. (In her case, incidentally, I think that the
"exuding" is even stated explicitly, though I wouldn't absolutely
swear to it without digging through the books.)
> In both cases we have a creature that seems to producace palpable
> darkness. Is the darkness part of the creature in both cases, or
> not? What is it in the text that suggests one interpretation over
> another.
In Ungoliant's case, my impression was always of her darkness simply
flowing out, sort of like a supernatural viscous goo. In the Balrog's
case, I felt like it had direct control over the "shadow" the whole
time; at the very least, a darkness that simply flowed out from the
Balrog would be unlikely to suddenly "reach out like two vast wings".
That proves nothing, of course, but I just get a sense of conscious
control from the Moria scene. I don't recall any scene that made me
think Ungoliant could make her Unlight move "on its own" after she had
spewed it forth.
Steuard Jensen
ste...@nomail.com
:> Steuard Jensen <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
:> : I have that same impression: I think the shadows were almost
:> : certainly a "part" of the Balrog, whatever that means.
:> Why is that? Was Ungoliant's Unlight part of her, or was it
:> just something she exuded?
: The latter, I agree. (In her case, incidentally, I think that the
: "exuding" is even stated explicitly, though I wouldn't absolutely
: swear to it without digging through the books.)
She is said to "belch forth black vapours as she drank",
but before that it says "Then the Unlight of Ungoliant rose
up even to the roots of the Trees".
:> In both cases we have a creature that seems to producace palpable
:> darkness. Is the darkness part of the creature in both cases, or
:> not? What is it in the text that suggests one interpretation over
:> another.
: In Ungoliant's case, my impression was always of her darkness simply
: flowing out, sort of like a supernatural viscous goo. In the Balrog's
: case, I felt like it had direct control over the "shadow" the whole
: time; at the very least, a darkness that simply flowed out from the
: Balrog would be unlikely to suddenly "reach out like two vast wings".
: That proves nothing, of course, but I just get a sense of conscious
: control from the Moria scene. I don't recall any scene that made me
: think Ungoliant could make her Unlight move "on its own" after she had
: spewed it forth.
: Steuard Jensen
"and she rose against him, and her cloud closed about him, and she
enmeshed him in a web of clinging thonbs to strangle him". So she
does have control of the "cloud", although I suppose it could be
read in other ways. We actually have much more detailed descriptions of
Ungoliant and her Unlight than we do of the Balrog, and we see Ungoliant use
her darkness in multiple ways. Of course her darkness is described in many
different ways, as a cloud, as webs, as thongs, as Unlight, and perhaps
those are all different things.
Stephen
Tar-Elenion
sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu says...
> Quoth "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <nos...@nospam.nl> in article
> <bng8rp$mho$1...@reader08.wxs.nl>:
> > Steuard Jensen <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> schreef:
>
> > > There are obviously different definitions of the word "wing": you
> > > prefer a definition that is very general and refers primarily to
> > > shape, while (in this context) I prefer a definition that has a
> > > more limited sense (more of less "an intrinsic part of the
> > > creature's body, made of the same general materials"). Both
> > > definitions are perfectly good! :)
>
> > We could debate about what definition is best, but it really doesn't
> > matter once you've agreed on what the Balrog actually looks like and
> > what it is made of.
>
> Absolutely, I agree. In the end, the simple question "Do Balrogs have
> wings?" is probably too ill-defined for productive discussion
> anyway. :) Far better would be to ask "What is the composition and
> structure of a Balrog?", but that's too dry to capture the interest of
> the original question. Ah well... as long as we can keep the
> discussion civil and move it in productive directions fairly quickly,
> I think we'll be okay.
No, no no...
Balrog wings? Bah, who cares, totally unimportant.
The important issue regarding wings is that Numenoreans have them.
"'Greater than great houses are the ships of the Go-hilleg, and they bear
store of men and goods, and yet are wafted by the winds; for the Sea-men
spread great cloths like wings to catch the airs, and bind them to tall
poles like trees of the forest...[They bring and sell trade goods, spy
out the land and leave]... And if they do not return, men should be
thankful.
For if they come again it is in other guise. In greater numbers they come
then: two ships or more together, stuffed with men and not goods, and
ever one of the accursed ships hath black wings. For that is the Ship of
the Dark, and in it they bear away evil booty, captives packed like
beasts, the fairest women and children, or young men unblemished, and
that is their end. Some say that they are eaten for meat; and others that
they are slain with torment on the black stones in the worship of the
Dark. Both maybe are true. The foul wings of the Sea-men have not been
seen in these waters for many a year; but remembering the shadow of fear
in the past I cried out, and cry again: is not our life hard enough
without the vision of a black wing upon the shining sea?'"
PoME, Tal-Elmar
<snip>
--
Tar-Elenion
Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.
Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Steuard Jensen
> Steuard Jensen <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> schreef:
> > Quoth "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <nos...@nospam.nl>:
> > > Steuard Jensen <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> schreef:
> > there is certainly considerable disagreement about whether it
> > always had a wing-like shape.
> Is there a point in the story where the shadow turns into another
> shape, like claws, or just disappears? I can't find anything that
> suggests the shadows take on a shape other than wings.
I suppose it depends on how you read each reference, but I think so
(or at least, I think there's as strong a case to be made for the
"shadow" changing shape as for it being fixed).
The most significant point that I would raise is that the Balrog's
"man-shaped" body seems to be repeatedly described as being _inside_
the "shadow", not merely attached to it:
"it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form"
"From out of the shadow a red sword leaped flaming."
(Admittedly the first quote is ambiguous, but the second seems quite
clear to me: the sword started out inside the shadow.) That alone
implies to me that at least part of the shadow wasn't shaped like
wings, as wings don't normally engulf the winged creature (the "wings"
were already spread when the sword leaped out, incidentally, so this
isn't just a case of the "wings" being folded around the Balrog).
On a related note, when the Balrog came to the edge of the firey
fissure, "the light faded as if a cloud had bent over it." Again,
this doesn't sound like a description of a winglike shape at all:
indeed, the "shadow" is described more or less directly as looking
like a cloud.
Yes, the Balrog's shadow at one point "reached out like two vast
wings", and immediately after that Tolkien refers to "its wings". But
shortly later when the Balrog falls into the abyss, we're back to
generic "shadow" again: "the Balrog fell forward, and its shadow
plunged down and vanished".
In short, I can easily imagine an amorphous cloudlike "shadow"
behaving in a way that made it look like wings (that description would
easily apply any time it spread out wide from side to side). But I
have a lot more trouble visualizing how a pair of wings (even if made
of "shadow-stuff") would look like a "cloud" or would seem to engulf
their owner even when they were spread out wide.
None of that is conclusive, I'll readily admit. But I think it's a
distinctly _possible_ reading of Tolkien's intent, and I am reasonably
confident that there's no obvious way to disprove it. Given that, I
that my claim that there is considerable disagreement about whether
the "shadow" always had a wing-like shape is pretty safe. (Unless
I've convinced you that it didn't! :) )
> > Personally, I suspect that the Balrog could manipulate that
> > shadow-stuff into pretty much any shape that it wanted to, and
> > that the "two vast wings" were one example of that
> What makes you suspect that?
When I combine the belief that the "reaching out" was a conscious act
with the strong suspicion that the "shadow" had moments earlier been
shaped like an amorphous cloud, the conclusion seems difficult to
avoid. :)
> > But in the end, we just don't have enough information to know if
> > the "shadow" was amorphous or permanantly wing-like.
> Yes, we do.
Ok, let's turn the tables: what makes you say that? (And I note that
you didn't say "I suspect that" or "it seems likely that" as I did, so
I assume that you can back up your absolute claim with absolute proof.
If not, you might want to ease up on your wording a little.)
> The text makes it quite clear what shape they have,
The text makes it quite clear that for at least a minute or so during
a particular encounter, the "shadow" was shaped like wings. The text
also describes the "shadow" both before and after that moment without
using the word "wings" at all; in fact, at one point it is described
as a "cloud" instead. I don't think the text makes the shadow's
"intrinsic" shape the least bit clear (unless to indicate that it
didn't have one in the first place).
> and if that doesn't suit a certain definition of a wing, then that
> definition isn't applicable for The Lord of the Rings.
Again, the most it seems to me that you can claim is that "that
definition isn't applicable for that minute or so during _The Lord of
the Rings_".
> We're not comparing personal definitions, but trying to ascertain
> the meaning of a text. That means that one definition might just be
> unsuitable.
Absolutely. :) All of my concern with definitions has to do with
people accidentally arguing about very different questions when they
ask "Do Balrogs have wings?" Once we ask a better defined question
like "What is the shape and composition of a Balrog?", we can avoid
any words whose definitions we don't agree upon by just describing the
thing in greater detail. :)
> The Balrog spreads its wings, so it has wings one way or the
> other. I really don't see the problem in admitting that.
"Admitting" is a rather confrontational word: it makes it sound like
I'm in denial. :)
Again, I completely agree that at that time, the Balrog undoubtedly
had "wings" according to several common definitions of the word (and
that Tolkien's use of the word "wings" makes that obvious). I'm just
not sure that it had "wings" in any meaningful sense five minutes
earlier or later... and Tolkien's wording can't help us with that one.
> Of course it's imaginable that he only grows them/creates them as
> shadows for this scene, but why? Isn't that an overly complicated
> interpretation when there are other interpretations which fit every
> word of the text?
I don't think it's overly complicated, no. In fact, I would almost
say the opposite: it seems _more_ complicated and confusing to me that
a "shadow" permanantly shaped like wings would look like a "cloud" and
somehow "contain" a sword. Whereas I think that a permanant amorphous
cloud-like "shadow" could _easily_ look like wings if it stretched out
on either side of the Balrog's central body.
> Well, here's a different interpretation, based not just on the
> sentecnes where the word 'wings' appears. All fragments are from the
> last two paragraphs of chapter V of The Fellowship of the Ring.
You mean the last two or three "pages" of chapter V of "Book II",
right? (It's three pages rather than two in my edition.)
> Here's the really confusing thing about the text, aside from the
> 'maybe man-shape', no descriptions of the non-burning parts of the
> Balrog are given. Yet he suddenly has a hand, which is a step
> further from the 'maybe man-shape'. Nostrils are also introduced
> before having been described: 'Fire came from its nostrils', as if
> the nostrils could only be seen because of the fire. All this is not
> unlikely, because such stark constrasts in darkness and light always
> make vision difficult: eyes cannot adjust to it.
This sounds generally reasonable (and it's a beautifully vivid
picture, with fire glowing from within the darkness... thanks for
reminding me of that :) ).
> Because of this, the balrog is mostly seen, and its appearance
> deduced, through it's shadow. Even when it's standing right in front
> of Gandalf, it's still described as a shadow in general: 'From out
> of the shadow a red sword leaped flaming'.
So check me on this: are you taking the "shadow" that's described in
the scene to be a normal, literal shadow? Of the "stop blocking the
light" variety? If so, how do you explain the dimming of the fire
before the Balrog leapt across the fissure, "as if a cloud had bent
over it"?
And why, when the Balrog finally fell from the broken bridge, did "its
shadow plunge[d] down and vanish[ed]"? There was no strong light up
above to make it cast a shadow down into the abyss; in fact, as the
Balrog itself was probably the brightest light in the area, why
wouldn't any and all shadows nearby look like they were going _up_
when it fell?
You've got an intriguing idea here, certainly, but I don't know that
it entirely works. :)
> Specific parts are first hinted at, and then literally mentioned,
> like the hands. First it's a vague man-shape, which siggests hands,
> later there are true hands. This is exactly how the wings are
> introduced. First, only their shadow is seen, but when the Balrog
> draws itself up to full height, it suddenly spreads its wings,
> perhaps delibarately bringing them into full view to dwarf the
> wizard.
I still think there's a crucial difference. The hands were first only
hinted at (but not named) and then seemed to spring into view, but
when they did, they were called "hands", no question. The "wings", on
the other hand, were first introduced not as some vague hinted shape
but as the shape of the shadow (normal or palpable) itself. Later on,
the phrase "its wings" could easily be a metaphorical reference to the
current shape of the shadow; if that wasn't what Tolkien intended,
then he seems to have used uncharacteristically ambiguous language in
this case.
The example of the hands is different specifically because nothing
associated with the Balrog has been compared to "hands" yet. Thus,
when its hands are mentioned, there is no reason to think that it's
refering back to some other thing that only looked like hands.
There's no ambiguity.
> Because of the fact that the wings are described in the same way as
> the rest of its body, they're probably just as real as the other
> parts.
Again, I would only accept that claim if at some earlier point we had
read that "the shadow wound around the red sword like a gripping hand"
or something along those lines. The rest of the Balrog's body was
first introduced as something solid inside the shadow; the wings were
first introduced as the shape of the shadow itself. I don't think
that counts as being "described in the same way".
> The wings don't carry flames or burn themselves, so they look like
> shadows. So Tolkien came to the description: because there are
> wing-like shadows, it is suspected that there are true, tangible
> wings. And this suspicion is confirmed when the Balrog spreads its
> wings.
But it seems like the "wing-like shadows" spread before the wings
themselves do (otherwise, why babble about the shadow reaching out
like wings instead of just talking about the wings then and there?).
We never see a description of the "real" wings unfurling and spreading
out at all: they're suddenly just there, stretching from wall to
wall... just like the already-mentioned shadow shaped like wings was
already in the process of doing.
> So I think the buildup of the Balrog scene could point to a Balrog with
> wings, made from the same substance as the rest of its body.
Again, it's an intriguing idea, but I just don't think it fits all the
evidence. I'm interested to see if you think I've made mistakes in my
argument, though.
> The whole creature is described indirectly:... The same goes for the
> hands, feet ('Right at the Balrog's feet it broke', but when were we
> ever told the Balrog had feet?) and the wings, too.
We weren't told that the Balrog had feet, no, not until they were
mentioned in that quote. But we _were_ already told that it had
"wings": a shadow that reached out like wings, to be precise. If we'd
already read that the Balrog had talons for its feet, I wouldn't take
your quote above to indicate that it had ordinary human feet as well!
> Either that or the shadows themselves are the wings.
At least for the minute or two that they look that way, certainly. :)
> Still there is no way the text describes a Balrog without wings. A
> wingless Balrog is, in my opinion, purely a matter of personal
> taste, like a dark-skinned Frodo or Orcs who actually mean well but
> are simply misunderstood.
How kind of you to characterize my understanding of the text that
way. :P (At least you said "in my opinion" this time. :) Though the
earlier "no way" seems to more or less counterbalance it.) Ah well,
you've raised some interesting ideas, so I think the discussion has
been worthwhile. :)
Steuard Jensen
Steuard Jensen
<2a4798d.03102...@posting.google.com>:
> People discuss Balrogs like they are a species of animal... They
> are not. They were spirits of fire, and they were Maiar. As such
> thier physical form is not fixed as those of the Kelvar (animals).
> I think different Balrogs may have very different appearances
> depending on their particular expression of the element fire.
It's a good point, and I don't think there's any strong
counterargument (and yes, people have looked for one before).
On the other hand, there's at least one reason to guess that they all
looked more or less similar: Legolas (and probably Gandalf) recognizes
the Balrog for what it is as soon as it comes into view. If they all
looked very different, that might be unexpected (particularly as it
doesn't seem likely that Legolas had much personal experience with
multiple Balrogs to generalize from).
That proves absolutely nothing, but I think it makes the "all Balrogs
look more or less the same" idea possible, anyway.
Steuard Jensen
Henriette
> held...@hotmail.com (Henriette) wrote:
>
> > ste...@nomail.com wrote in message
> > > Having a shadow that appears like wings is not the same thing
> > > as having wings.
> >
> > This cannot be repeated enough.
>
> does a stealth bomber hae wings
> shadowy wings
> wingy shadows
> shadows
> or john travolta playing yet another annoying prat
"What do you mean by that
that is not an answer
Who is this unfortunate"
Henriette
Henriette
> Henriette <held...@hotmail.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
> > ste...@nomail.com wrote in message news:
> > (snip)
> > > Having a shadow that appears like wings is not the same thing
> > > as having wings.
>
> > This cannot be repeated enough.
>
> But it's wrong (case in point: the Balrog), so I wouldn't repeat it too
> often.
>
It cannot be repeated enough because it is so very true.
Henriette
Henriette
>
> I know this issue has been debated ad infinitum so this point may have
> been brought up before. People discuss Balrogs like they are a
> species of animal indigenous to middle earth, like the Mumakil or even
> the Troll. They are not. They were spirits of fire, and they were
> Maiar. As such thier physical form is not fixed as those of the
> Kelvar (animals). I think different Balrogs may have very different
> appearances depending on their particular expression of the element
> fire. Some may have had wings of fire, some may have had wings of
> shadow and flame, some may have had had more substantial, fleshy wings
> that were on fire and some may have had no wings at all. The main
> point here is that they do not all have to be physically similar since
> they are not a species of animal but spirits of flame.
>
Henriette
coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
your words
not mine
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
> Quoth "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <nos...@nospam.nl> in article
> <bnlr78$il7$1...@reader08.wxs.nl>:
> > Steuard Jensen <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> schreef:
> > > Quoth "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <nos...@nospam.nl>:
> > > > Steuard Jensen <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> schreef:
>
> > > there is certainly considerable disagreement about whether it
> > > always had a wing-like shape.
>
> > Is there a point in the story where the shadow turns into another
> > shape, like claws, or just disappears? I can't find anything that
> > suggests the shadows take on a shape other than wings.
>
> I suppose it depends on how you read each reference, but I think so
> (or at least, I think there's as strong a case to be made for the
> "shadow" changing shape as for it being fixed).
>
> The most significant point that I would raise is that the Balrog's
> "man-shaped" body seems to be repeatedly described as being _inside_
> the "shadow", not merely attached to it:
>
> "it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form"
>
> "From out of the shadow a red sword leaped flaming."
>
> (Admittedly the first quote is ambiguous, but the second seems quite
> clear to me: the sword started out inside the shadow.) That alone
> implies to me that at least part of the shadow wasn't shaped like
> wings, as wings don't normally engulf the winged creature (the "wings"
> were already spread when the sword leaped out, incidentally, so this
> isn't just a case of the "wings" being folded around the Balrog).
That doesn't mean in any way that the Balrog could change shape; it would
only mean that the shadows (and the wings) were part of its body.
>
> On a related note, when the Balrog came to the edge of the firey
> fissure, "the light faded as if a cloud had bent over it." Again,
> this doesn't sound like a description of a winglike shape at all:
> indeed, the "shadow" is described more or less directly as looking
> like a cloud.
>
> Yes, the Balrog's shadow at one point "reached out like two vast
> wings", and immediately after that Tolkien refers to "its wings". But
> shortly later when the Balrog falls into the abyss, we're back to
> generic "shadow" again: "the Balrog fell forward, and its shadow
> plunged down and vanished".
>
> In short, I can easily imagine an amorphous cloudlike "shadow"
> behaving in a way that made it look like wings (that description would
> easily apply any time it spread out wide from side to side). But I
> have a lot more trouble visualizing how a pair of wings (even if made
> of "shadow-stuff") would look like a "cloud" or would seem to engulf
> their owner even when they were spread out wide.
The lack of precise descriptions of form in every sentence doesn't mean the
Balrog is amorphous. Shadows are unclear, especially around blazing fires,
but not formless. As it is described the wings come into view some of the
time, but extrapolating that to mean that the Balrog could change shape
seems like taking it too far. I think Tolkien simply describes him as a
dark, unclear form, but that does not mean the form is changing all the
time.
>
> None of that is conclusive, I'll readily admit. But I think it's a
> distinctly _possible_ reading of Tolkien's intent, and I am reasonably
> confident that there's no obvious way to disprove it. Given that, I
> that my claim that there is considerable disagreement about whether
> the "shadow" always had a wing-like shape is pretty safe. (Unless
> I've convinced you that it didn't! :) )
>
> > > Personally, I suspect that the Balrog could manipulate that
> > > shadow-stuff into pretty much any shape that it wanted to, and
> > > that the "two vast wings" were one example of that
>
> > What makes you suspect that?
>
> When I combine the belief that the "reaching out" was a conscious act
> with the strong suspicion that the "shadow" had moments earlier been
> shaped like an amorphous cloud, the conclusion seems difficult to
> avoid. :)
>
> > > But in the end, we just don't have enough information to know if
> > > the "shadow" was amorphous or permanantly wing-like.
>
> > Yes, we do.
>
> Ok, let's turn the tables: what makes you say that? (And I note that
> you didn't say "I suspect that" or "it seems likely that" as I did, so
> I assume that you can back up your absolute claim with absolute proof.
> If not, you might want to ease up on your wording a little.)
Well, aside from the possibility that the Balrog changed into something
radically different outside this scene, he is never described as a
shape-changing being. All his features were either difficult to see or
connected to flame, which lights them up like a beacon (and makes the rest
darker in contrast). So, once he is proven to have wings, there is no reason
to assume that they weren't there earlier, even though they might not have
been visible. And it is very likely that they weren't visible earlier,
whatever they consisted of: dark wings on a black background or shadow-stuff
wings on a shadowy surface are difficult to see.
>
> > The text makes it quite clear what shape they have,
>
> The text makes it quite clear that for at least a minute or so during
> a particular encounter, the "shadow" was shaped like wings. The text
> also describes the "shadow" both before and after that moment without
> using the word "wings" at all; in fact, at one point it is described
> as a "cloud" instead. I don't think the text makes the shadow's
> "intrinsic" shape the least bit clear (unless to indicate that it
> didn't have one in the first place).
Many features come out of this shadow which are later or earlier not
described, like the hands and the feet. Yet there is nothing that suggests
these features are suddenly grown.
>
> > and if that doesn't suit a certain definition of a wing, then that
> > definition isn't applicable for The Lord of the Rings.
>
> Again, the most it seems to me that you can claim is that "that
> definition isn't applicable for that minute or so during _The Lord of
> the Rings_".
That sounds like ad-hoc reasoning to me: the Balrog did not have wings
except for the minute where he is described as having wings. Why not simply
admit he has them all the time? It was dark, he's a creature of shadow and
un unclear shape, so the wings weren't visible all the time, like most of
the creature.
>
> > We're not comparing personal definitions, but trying to ascertain
> > the meaning of a text. That means that one definition might just be
> > unsuitable.
>
> Absolutely. :) All of my concern with definitions has to do with
> people accidentally arguing about very different questions when they
> ask "Do Balrogs have wings?" Once we ask a better defined question
> like "What is the shape and composition of a Balrog?", we can avoid
> any words whose definitions we don't agree upon by just describing the
> thing in greater detail. :)
>
> > The Balrog spreads its wings, so it has wings one way or the
> > other. I really don't see the problem in admitting that.
>
> "Admitting" is a rather confrontational word: it makes it sound like
> I'm in denial. :)
You are, you are...but you *will* become a believer. I'm in regular
correspondence with the rest of the Society of the Winged Balrog. ;)
>
> Again, I completely agree that at that time, the Balrog undoubtedly
> had "wings" according to several common definitions of the word (and
> that Tolkien's use of the word "wings" makes that obvious). I'm just
> not sure that it had "wings" in any meaningful sense five minutes
> earlier or later... and Tolkien's wording can't help us with that one.
>
> > Of course it's imaginable that he only grows them/creates them as
> > shadows for this scene, but why? Isn't that an overly complicated
> > interpretation when there are other interpretations which fit every
> > word of the text?
>
> I don't think it's overly complicated, no. In fact, I would almost
> say the opposite: it seems _more_ complicated and confusing to me that
> a "shadow" permanantly shaped like wings would look like a "cloud" and
> somehow "contain" a sword.
The sword was in the creature's hand. If it suddenly darts out of a shadow,
it seems obvious that the hand and arm are not visible.
> Whereas I think that a permanant amorphous
> cloud-like "shadow" could _easily_ look like wings if it stretched out
> on either side of the Balrog's central body.
>
> > Well, here's a different interpretation, based not just on the
> > sentecnes where the word 'wings' appears. All fragments are from the
> > last two paragraphs of chapter V of The Fellowship of the Ring.
>
> You mean the last two or three "pages" of chapter V of "Book II",
> right? (It's three pages rather than two in my edition.)
Yes, yes, whatever. I said paragraphs, not pages. There's a line break (or
other term) between '...I am already weary' and 'The dark figure
streaming...'
>
> > Here's the really confusing thing about the text, aside from the
> > 'maybe man-shape', no descriptions of the non-burning parts of the
> > Balrog are given. Yet he suddenly has a hand, which is a step
> > further from the 'maybe man-shape'. Nostrils are also introduced
> > before having been described: 'Fire came from its nostrils', as if
> > the nostrils could only be seen because of the fire. All this is not
> > unlikely, because such stark constrasts in darkness and light always
> > make vision difficult: eyes cannot adjust to it.
>
> This sounds generally reasonable (and it's a beautifully vivid
> picture, with fire glowing from within the darkness... thanks for
> reminding me of that :) ).
>
> > Because of this, the balrog is mostly seen, and its appearance
> > deduced, through it's shadow. Even when it's standing right in front
> > of Gandalf, it's still described as a shadow in general: 'From out
> > of the shadow a red sword leaped flaming'.
>
> So check me on this: are you taking the "shadow" that's described in
> the scene to be a normal, literal shadow? Of the "stop blocking the
> light" variety? If so, how do you explain the dimming of the fire
> before the Balrog leapt across the fissure, "as if a cloud had bent
> over it"?
If the fires on the Balrog dimmed, it would become darker and its outline
less clear.
>
> And why, when the Balrog finally fell from the broken bridge, did "its
> shadow plunge[d] down and vanish[ed]"? There was no strong light up
> above to make it cast a shadow down into the abyss; in fact, as the
> Balrog itself was probably the brightest light in the area, why
> wouldn't any and all shadows nearby look like they were going _up_
> when it fell?
It carries flames, so its other parts are always difficult to see. This is
easy to envision. Think of an interrogation in a spy movie, where the
prisoner is sitting in a dark room in front of a lamp. He can never
distinguish his interrogators unless they step into the light. But if the
interrogators carry the lamp with them, they will remain anonymous, being
only dark silhouettes (or shadows!) to the prisoner. The Balrog carries
flames, and here's the key to this interpretation: only the flaming parts of
the Balrog are described directly. The rest is either inferred or recognized
as a dark outline. I think that's because only the lit parts are truly
visible, the rest is unclear because of the 'interrogation-effect'.
A similar effect can be seen in a person standing in front of a large
bonfire at night: such a person also seems to become a shadow.
>
> You've got an intriguing idea here, certainly, but I don't know that
> it entirely works. :)
>
> > Specific parts are first hinted at, and then literally mentioned,
> > like the hands. First it's a vague man-shape, which siggests hands,
> > later there are true hands. This is exactly how the wings are
> > introduced. First, only their shadow is seen, but when the Balrog
> > draws itself up to full height, it suddenly spreads its wings,
> > perhaps delibarately bringing them into full view to dwarf the
> > wizard.
>
> I still think there's a crucial difference. The hands were first only
> hinted at (but not named) and then seemed to spring into view, but
> when they did, they were called "hands", no question. The "wings", on
> the other hand, were first introduced not as some vague hinted shape
> but as the shape of the shadow (normal or palpable) itself. Later on,
> the phrase "its wings" could easily be a metaphorical reference to the
> current shape of the shadow; if that wasn't what Tolkien intended,
> then he seems to have used uncharacteristically ambiguous language in
> this case.
The differenc is that the wings aren't connected to anything. They don't
carry a weapon or spout flames: they're just wings, not even used for
flying. They become visible the moment the creature draws itself up to full
height, earlier only their shadow could be seen (the regular procedure for
Balrog-bodypart-spotting). The hands, by the way, were also first hinted at
and then used without true introduction, like the feet and the nostrils and
anything else that's not burning. I think this is a logical omission if
Tolkien wanted to keep this scene fast: there was no time for Gandalf to
look at the Balrog and assure himself that the monster was, indeed, shaped
much like a man. The fellowship did't pause to see if their earlier inferred
observations were correct, and they did not have to, because the balrog came
into better view anyway.
>
> The example of the hands is different specifically because nothing
> associated with the Balrog has been compared to "hands" yet. Thus,
> when its hands are mentioned, there is no reason to think that it's
> refering back to some other thing that only looked like hands.
> There's no ambiguity.
It seemed to be shaped like a man, and a man has hands. Therefore, the hands
were hinted at. If you see a person at a long distance, too far to recognize
hands, you'll assume that person has them.
>
> > Because of the fact that the wings are described in the same way as
> > the rest of its body, they're probably just as real as the other
> > parts.
>
> Again, I would only accept that claim if at some earlier point we had
> read that "the shadow wound around the red sword like a gripping hand"
> or something along those lines. The rest of the Balrog's body was
> first introduced as something solid inside the shadow; the wings were
> first introduced as the shape of the shadow itself. I don't think
> that counts as being "described in the same way".
What the features have in common is that they are never described directly.
Tolkien probably would not have mentioned the hands if the Balrog never used
them. He never even uses the word 'legs', but the Balrog does walk, and
because of that, the earlier suggestion of legs proves to be true.
>
> > The wings don't carry flames or burn themselves, so they look like
> > shadows. So Tolkien came to the description: because there are
> > wing-like shadows, it is suspected that there are true, tangible
> > wings. And this suspicion is confirmed when the Balrog spreads its
> > wings.
>
> But it seems like the "wing-like shadows" spread before the wings
> themselves do (otherwise, why babble about the shadow reaching out
> like wings instead of just talking about the wings then and there?).
> We never see a description of the "real" wings unfurling and spreading
> out at all: they're suddenly just there, stretching from wall to
> wall... just like the already-mentioned shadow shaped like wings was
> already in the process of doing.
Exactly! The hands, the face, everything, it never seems to come into view!
That's my whole point about the passage, Tolkien never points to the moment
from where something is visible when it previously wasn't. The wings are
never introduced, they're hinted at and then used. It's the language of
people who don't take a pause to look for things, but are mostly concerned
with what is happening to them: the 'ask questions later' approach.
Also, it has to be mentioned that at least two members of the fellowship
knew what Balrogs are. The text could have been written by someone who knew
what Balrogs look like and did not think it necessary to specifically
mention the wings.
>
> > So I think the buildup of the Balrog scene could point to a Balrog with
> > wings, made from the same substance as the rest of its body.
>
> Again, it's an intriguing idea, but I just don't think it fits all the
> evidence. I'm interested to see if you think I've made mistakes in my
> argument, though.
Well, yes: the hands are hinted at earlier.
>
> > The whole creature is described indirectly:... The same goes for the
> > hands, feet ('Right at the Balrog's feet it broke', but when were we
> > ever told the Balrog had feet?) and the wings, too.
>
> We weren't told that the Balrog had feet, no, not until they were
> mentioned in that quote. But we _were_ already told that it had
> "wings": a shadow that reached out like wings, to be precise. If we'd
> already read that the Balrog had talons for its feet, I wouldn't take
> your quote above to indicate that it had ordinary human feet as well!
The feet were hinted at, as well: the fact that there's a man-like shape
moving and leaping suggests it walks on feet. If an author has even a basic
grasp of psychology he knows that readers will assume such a being to have
feet. Readers are not computerprograms that use wide boolean margins within
which anything could be true. They make assumptions, and the lead characters
probably did that as well. Ofcourse, in this interpretation I conclude that
the Balrog had physical, tangible, 3-dimensional wings, made of the same
basic stuff as, say, its arms, not of some wispy shadow-stuff. That would
mean that the shadows point indirectly to the wings and the spreading
indirectly confirms them.
Because of this thread I looked at the movie scene again and the above
interpretation conforms more or less to what is seen on the screen. I think
a lot can be said for it, as well as for the commentary by one of the
scriptwriters (a woman whose name I forgot): 'The book says he has wings - I
don't see what all the fuss is about.' I'm more and more inclined to believe
the movie-balrog is very close to what Tolkien had in mind.
>
> > Either that or the shadows themselves are the wings.
>
> At least for the minute or two that they look that way, certainly. :)
>
> > Still there is no way the text describes a Balrog without wings. A
> > wingless Balrog is, in my opinion, purely a matter of personal
> > taste, like a dark-skinned Frodo or Orcs who actually mean well but
> > are simply misunderstood.
>
> How kind of you to characterize my understanding of the text that
> way. :P (At least you said "in my opinion" this time. :) Though the
> earlier "no way" seems to more or less counterbalance it.) Ah well,
> you've raised some interesting ideas, so I think the discussion has
> been worthwhile. :)
Well, a subject with so little relevance to society can be debated in hard
terms; nobody's life really depends on this, does it? Still I do think that
the wingless Balrog is a personal fancy, introduced for a reason I don't
really understand. Perhaps if there was some positive assertion that
actually confirms the lack of wings, it would be a better point for debate.
But the wing-like shadows only suggest the presence of wings that can
themselves not be seen, it's not in any way a denial that there are wings.
The presence of such shadows make wings all the more likely, they're just
circumstantial as proof. But that's hardly an alibi.
Jonathan.
ste...@nomail.com
: No, no no...
: Balrog wings? Bah, who cares, totally unimportant.
: The important issue regarding wings is that Numenoreans have them.
Earendil also had wings
"From Evereven's lofty hills
where softly silver fountains fall
his wings him bore, a wandering light,
beyond the mighty Mountain Wall."
as do songs,
"'It seems that you are come on the wings of song out of the
forgotten days'"
and storms.
"The skirts of the storms were lifting, ragged and wet, and
the main battle had passed to spread its great wings over
the Emyn Muil"
Stephen
put-the-no-mail-...@mail.ru
"I am really quite surprised"
...that you don't know Travolta. Pulp Fiction, for instance.
Archie (does my memory still serve me?)
TT Arvind
> It wouldn't make much difference how far they fell past a certain point.
> They would have reached terminal velocity quickly. And one must assume that
> Balrogs and wizards can survive a fall, wings or no wings.
Why must one assume this? Balrogs clearly could not survive a fall,
since at least two Balrogs appear to have fallen to their deaths. Nor
could Gandalf survive a fall - else he could, for example, have just
dived off Orthanc and walked away unscathed. Plus from UT we know that
the Istari were subject to the same weaknesses as mortals in terms of
being able to be slain.
Now, IIRC terminal velocity for an average human is something like 90
m/s, which translates to about 325 kilometres/hour. At that speed, you
might as well be hitting concrete as water.
So why weren't Gandalf and the Balrog smashed to bits when they hit the
bottom of the fissure? I would, of course, suggest that it was the
lift provided by the Balrog's wings, but what do the no-wingers say?
--
Meneldil
Vuja De: the feeling that you've never been here before.
coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<put-the-no-mail-...@mail.ru> wrote:
did he ever portray jesus christ superstar?
ste...@nomail.com
: žus cwęš Membranous Gauss:
Who knows? You are assuming a consistency in Middle Earth that
may not be present. Gandalf did survive the fall, even though
he "was burned".
"Long I fell, and he fell with me. His fire was about me.
I was burned."
For a long time Gandalf was surrounded by fire and burned, but
then after crashing into the water, he gets up and chases
the Balrog thousands of feet up to the top of the mountain.
Gandalf was no mere mortal. A real person would have been killed
by the fire, not just the fall. So why was Gandalf not burned
to death? My answer is the the reason he was not burned to death
was the same reason he survived the impact.
Stephen
Tamfiiris Entwife
> > > wingy shadows
> > > shadows
> > > or john travolta playing yet another annoying prat
> > "What do you mean by that
> > that is not an answer
> > Who is this unfortunate"
> your words
> not mine
i wish i knew the rules for your little game -
it looks quite amusing.
--
Tamf, lellow dwagin and CHOKLIT-eater at your service.
It is often forgotten that [dictionaries] are artificial repositories,
put together well after the languages they define. The roots of language
are irrational and of a magical nature. (Jorge Luis Borges)
Tar-Elenion
> In rec.arts.books.tolkien Tar-Elenion <tar_e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> : No, no no...
> : Balrog wings? Bah, who cares, totally unimportant.
> : The important issue regarding wings is that Numenoreans have them.
>
> Earendil also had wings
> "From Evereven's lofty hills
> where softly silver fountains fall
> his wings him bore, a wandering light,
> beyond the mighty Mountain Wall."
Elwing to; now we know why the Numenoreans have wings, they inherited
them.
>
> as do songs,
> "'It seems that you are come on the wings of song out of the
> forgotten days'"
>
> and storms.
> "The skirts of the storms were lifting, ragged and wet, and
> the main battle had passed to spread its great wings over
> the Emyn Muil"
The storms have skirts, but the battle has wings ("its" referring to the
"great battle" (or we can now spend countless hours arguing over the
meaning of 'its')).
;)
and trees as well.
"1 Ai! láurië lántar lássi su?rinèn,
2 ye?ni u`no?timè ve ra?mar áldaròn!"
:)
Steuard Jensen
> > > Steuard Jensen <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> schreef:
> > there is certainly considerable disagreement about whether it
> > always had a wing-like shape.
> Is there a point in the story where the shadow turns into another
> shape, like claws, or just disappears? I can't find anything that
> suggests the shadows take on a shape other than wings.
I suppose it depends on how you read each reference, but I think so
(or at least, I think there's as strong a case to be made for the
"shadow" changing shape as for it being fixed).
The most significant point that I would raise is that the Balrog's
"man-shaped" body seems to be repeatedly described as being _inside_
the "shadow", not merely attached to it:
"it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form"
"From out of the shadow a red sword leaped flaming."
(Admittedly the first quote is ambiguous, but the second seems quite
clear to me: the sword started out inside the shadow.) That alone
implies to me that at least part of the shadow wasn't shaped like
wings, as wings don't normally engulf the winged creature (the "wings"
were already spread when the sword leaped out, incidentally, so this
isn't just a case of the "wings" being folded around the Balrog).
On a related note, when the Balrog came to the edge of the firey
fissure, "the light faded as if a cloud had bent over it." Again,
this doesn't sound like a description of a winglike shape at all:
indeed, the "shadow" is described more or less directly as looking
like a cloud.
Yes, the Balrog's shadow at one point "reached out like two vast
wings", and immediately after that Tolkien refers to "its wings". But
shortly later when the Balrog falls into the abyss, we're back to
generic "shadow" again: "the Balrog fell forward, and its shadow
plunged down and vanished".
In short, I can easily imagine an amorphous cloudlike "shadow"
behaving in a way that made it look like wings (that description would
easily apply any time it spread out wide from side to side). But I
have a lot more trouble visualizing how a pair of wings (even if made
of "shadow-stuff") would look like a "cloud" or would seem to engulf
their owner even when they were spread out wide.
None of that is conclusive, I'll readily admit. But I think it's a
distinctly _possible_ reading of Tolkien's intent, and I am reasonably
confident that there's no obvious way to disprove it. Given that, I
that my claim that there is considerable disagreement about whether
the "shadow" always had a wing-like shape is pretty safe. (Unless
I've convinced you that it didn't! :) )
> > Personally, I suspect that the Balrog could manipulate that
> > shadow-stuff into pretty much any shape that it wanted to, and
> > that the "two vast wings" were one example of that
> What makes you suspect that?
When I combine the belief that the "reaching out" was a conscious act
with the strong suspicion that the "shadow" had moments earlier been
shaped like an amorphous cloud, the conclusion seems difficult to
avoid. :)
> > But in the end, we just don't have enough information to know if
> > the "shadow" was amorphous or permanantly wing-like.
> Yes, we do.
Ok, let's turn the tables: what makes you say that? (And I note that
you didn't say "I suspect that" or "it seems likely that" as I did, so
I assume that you can back up your absolute claim with absolute proof.
If not, you might want to ease up on your wording a little.)
> The text makes it quite clear what shape they have,
The text makes it quite clear that for at least a minute or so during
a particular encounter, the "shadow" was shaped like wings. The text
also describes the "shadow" both before and after that moment without
using the word "wings" at all; in fact, at one point it is described
as a "cloud" instead. I don't think the text makes the shadow's
"intrinsic" shape the least bit clear (unless to indicate that it
didn't have one in the first place).
> and if that doesn't suit a certain definition of a wing, then that
> definition isn't applicable for The Lord of the Rings.
Again, the most it seems to me that you can claim is that "that
definition isn't applicable for that minute or so during _The Lord of
the Rings_".
> We're not comparing personal definitions, but trying to ascertain
> the meaning of a text. That means that one definition might just be
> unsuitable.
Absolutely. :) All of my concern with definitions has to do with
people accidentally arguing about very different questions when they
ask "Do Balrogs have wings?" Once we ask a better defined question
like "What is the shape and composition of a Balrog?", we can avoid
any words whose definitions we don't agree upon by just describing the
thing in greater detail. :)
> The Balrog spreads its wings, so it has wings one way or the
> other. I really don't see the problem in admitting that.
"Admitting" is a rather confrontational word: it makes it sound like
I'm in denial. :)
Again, I completely agree that at that time, the Balrog undoubtedly
had "wings" according to several common definitions of the word (and
that Tolkien's use of the word "wings" makes that obvious). I'm just
not sure that it had "wings" in any meaningful sense five minutes
earlier or later... and Tolkien's wording can't help us with that one.
> Of course it's imaginable that he only grows them/creates them as
> shadows for this scene, but why? Isn't that an overly complicated
> interpretation when there are other interpretations which fit every
> word of the text?
I don't think it's overly complicated, no. In fact, I would almost
say the opposite: it seems _more_ complicated and confusing to me that
a "shadow" permanantly shaped like wings would look like a "cloud" and
somehow "contain" a sword. Whereas I think that a permanant amorphous
cloud-like "shadow" could _easily_ look like wings if it stretched out
on either side of the Balrog's central body.
> Well, here's a different interpretation, based not just on the
> sentecnes where the word 'wings' appears. All fragments are from the
> last two paragraphs of chapter V of The Fellowship of the Ring.
You mean the last two or three "pages" of chapter V of "Book II",
right? (It's three pages rather than two in my edition.)
> Here's the really confusing thing about the text, aside from the
> 'maybe man-shape', no descriptions of the non-burning parts of the
> Balrog are given. Yet he suddenly has a hand, which is a step
> further from the 'maybe man-shape'. Nostrils are also introduced
> before having been described: 'Fire came from its nostrils', as if
> the nostrils could only be seen because of the fire. All this is not
> unlikely, because such stark constrasts in darkness and light always
> make vision difficult: eyes cannot adjust to it.
This sounds generally reasonable (and it's a beautifully vivid
picture, with fire glowing from within the darkness... thanks for
reminding me of that :) ).
> Because of this, the balrog is mostly seen, and its appearance
> deduced, through it's shadow. Even when it's standing right in front
> of Gandalf, it's still described as a shadow in general: 'From out
> of the shadow a red sword leaped flaming'.
So check me on this: are you taking the "shadow" that's described in
the scene to be a normal, literal shadow? Of the "stop blocking the
light" variety? If so, how do you explain the dimming of the fire
before the Balrog leapt across the fissure, "as if a cloud had bent
over it"?
And why, when the Balrog finally fell from the broken bridge, did "its
shadow plunge[d] down and vanish[ed]"? There was no strong light up
above to make it cast a shadow down into the abyss; in fact, as the
Balrog itself was probably the brightest light in the area, why
wouldn't any and all shadows nearby look like they were going _up_
when it fell?
You've got an intriguing idea here, certainly, but I don't know that
it entirely works. :)
> Specific parts are first hinted at, and then literally mentioned,
> like the hands. First it's a vague man-shape, which siggests hands,
> later there are true hands. This is exactly how the wings are
> introduced. First, only their shadow is seen, but when the Balrog
> draws itself up to full height, it suddenly spreads its wings,
> perhaps delibarately bringing them into full view to dwarf the
> wizard.
I still think there's a crucial difference. The hands were first only
hinted at (but not named) and then seemed to spring into view, but
when they did, they were called "hands", no question. The "wings", on
the other hand, were first introduced not as some vague hinted shape
but as the shape of the shadow (normal or palpable) itself. Later on,
the phrase "its wings" could easily be a metaphorical reference to the
current shape of the shadow; if that wasn't what Tolkien intended,
then he seems to have used uncharacteristically ambiguous language in
this case.
The example of the hands is different specifically because nothing
associated with the Balrog has been compared to "hands" yet. Thus,
when its hands are mentioned, there is no reason to think that it's
refering back to some other thing that only looked like hands.
There's no ambiguity.
> Because of the fact that the wings are described in the same way as
> the rest of its body, they're probably just as real as the other
> parts.
Again, I would only accept that claim if at some earlier point we had
read that "the shadow wound around the red sword like a gripping hand"
or something along those lines. The rest of the Balrog's body was
first introduced as something solid inside the shadow; the wings were
first introduced as the shape of the shadow itself. I don't think
that counts as being "described in the same way".
> The wings don't carry flames or burn themselves, so they look like
> shadows. So Tolkien came to the description: because there are
> wing-like shadows, it is suspected that there are true, tangible
> wings. And this suspicion is confirmed when the Balrog spreads its
> wings.
But it seems like the "wing-like shadows" spread before the wings
themselves do (otherwise, why babble about the shadow reaching out
like wings instead of just talking about the wings then and there?).
We never see a description of the "real" wings unfurling and spreading
out at all: they're suddenly just there, stretching from wall to
wall... just like the already-mentioned shadow shaped like wings was
already in the process of doing.
> So I think the buildup of the Balrog scene could point to a Balrog with
> wings, made from the same substance as the rest of its body.
Again, it's an intriguing idea, but I just don't think it fits all the
evidence. I'm interested to see if you think I've made mistakes in my
argument, though.
> The whole creature is described indirectly:... The same goes for the
> hands, feet ('Right at the Balrog's feet it broke', but when were we
> ever told the Balrog had feet?) and the wings, too.
We weren't told that the Balrog had feet, no, not until they were
mentioned in that quote. But we _were_ already told that it had
"wings": a shadow that reached out like wings, to be precise. If we'd
already read that the Balrog had talons for its feet, I wouldn't take
your quote above to indicate that it had ordinary human feet as well!
> Either that or the shadows themselves are the wings.
At least for the minute or two that they look that way, certainly. :)
> Still there is no way the text describes a Balrog without wings. A
> wingless Balrog is, in my opinion, purely a matter of personal
> taste, like a dark-skinned Frodo or Orcs who actually mean well but
> are simply misunderstood.
How kind of you to characterize my understanding of the text that
way. :P (At least you said "in my opinion" this time. :) Though the
earlier "no way" seems to more or less counterbalance it.) Ah well,
you've raised some interesting ideas, so I think the discussion has
been worthwhile. :)
Steuard Jensen
Steuard Jensen
<ZpJnb.102$_4.4...@news.uchicago.edu>:
[snip]
Whoops! I think I just managed to accidentally cancel my previous
article, so I've taken a stab at reposting it. Hopefully it will show
up before too long. I apologize for the inconvenience. :)
Steuard Jensen
ste...@nomail.com
:> "The skirts of the storms were lifting, ragged and wet, and
:> the main battle had passed to spread its great wings over
:> the Emyn Muil"
: The storms have skirts, but the battle has wings ("its" referring to the
: "great battle" (or we can now spend countless hours arguing over the
: meaning of 'its')).
: ;)
:
But the battle is part of the storm. Or maybe it is something
separate. Wars have wings, those are also mentioned, and
battles are related to wars, so it makes sense they both
have rings.
: and trees as well.
: "1 Ai! láurië lántar lássi su?rinèn,
: 2 ye?ni u`no?timè ve ra?mar áldaròn!"
:
: :)
: --
: Tar-Elenion
If trees have wings, I think Ents must also have wings.
Their gait is likened to that of a heron, and the words
"quicker than the heron's wings" appears in a description
of Ents. Sounds pretty conclusive to me. :)
Stephen
coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<nos...@nono.no> wrote:
> Žį kvaš žat coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges:
>
> > > > wingy shadows
> > > > shadows
> > > > or john travolta playing yet another annoying prat
>
> > > "What do you mean by that
> > > that is not an answer
> > > Who is this unfortunate"
>
> > your words
> > not mine
>
> i wish i knew the rules for your little game -
> it looks quite amusing.
good
theres oxygen on this planet
Henriette
> Žį kvaš žat coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges:
>
> > > > wingy shadows
> > > > shadows
> > > > or john travolta playing yet another annoying prat
>
> > > "What do you mean by that
> > > that is not an answer
> > > Who is this unfortunate"
>
> > your words
> > not mine
>
> i wish i knew the rules for your little game -
> it looks quite amusing.
It is quite amusing! We're quoting from songs. The last two quotes are
from Jesus Christ Superstar.
Henriette
Henriette
> theres oxygen on this planet
Breathe deep while you sleep breathe deep
Henriette
coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
or obscure movies
Henriette
> >
> > "What do you mean by that
> > that is not an answer
> > Who is this unfortunate"
>
> "I am really quite surprised"
What's the Buzz
>
> ...that you don't know Travolta. Pulp Fiction, for instance.
Tell me more, tell me more?
>
> Archie (does my memory still serve me?)
It serves you very well, or you would not be a Ph. D.!
Henriette
coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
held...@hotmail.com (Henriette) wrote:
northern california wheres theres no fires
and a cool sea breeze
so pretty pretty no carbon monoxide or nicotine lung steam
or sulphur dioxide around here
coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> <put-the-no-mail-...@mail.ru> wrote in message
news:<MPG.1a0a21b68e...@news.mtu-net.ru>...
> > >
> > > "What do you mean by that
> > > that is not an answer
> > > Who is this unfortunate"
> >
> > "I am really quite surprised"
>
> What's the Buzz
> >
> > ...that you don't know Travolta. Pulp Fiction, for instance.
>
> Tell me more, tell me more?
> >
> > Archie (does my memory still serve me?)
i suppose its part of that instant karma
that while one group of miners were saved
in another mine an explosion killed
TT Arvind
> Who knows? You are assuming a consistency in Middle Earth that
> may not be present.
From that perspective, we can explain everything away by saying: "Oh,
Tolkien is so inconsistent in the LoTR that this is probably just another
example." It seems to me that Gandalf's ability to survive a fall that
long would be a fairly critical plot hole, and contradict what Tolkien
expressly said elsewhere ("Do not drop me!"). It seems far more
reasonable to assume that *something* retarded their velocity.
> Gandalf did survive the fall, even though
> he "was burned".
> "Long I fell, and he fell with me. His fire was about me.
> I was burned."
It depends on how hot the fire was. The fact that normal elves have been
able to engage in direct hand-to-hand combat with Balrogs would seem to
indicate that it was not very hot. I don't see a problem with any normal
mortal surviving close contact with a not-very-hot fire for reasonable
periods of time. They'd have nasty burns all right, but it wouldn't
necessarily be handicapping immediately.
--
Meneldil
Bad spellers of the world untie!
ste...@nomail.com
:> Who knows? You are assuming a consistency in Middle Earth that
:> may not be present.
: From that perspective, we can explain everything away by saying: "Oh,
: Tolkien is so inconsistent in the LoTR that this is probably just another
: example." It seems to me that Gandalf's ability to survive a fall that
: long would be a fairly critical plot hole, and contradict what Tolkien
: expressly said elsewhere ("Do not drop me!"). It seems far more
: reasonable to assume that *something* retarded their velocity.
You are the one assuming things about the text that are not there.
Gandalf did survive the fall, and there is no mention that his
descent was somehow slowed. It may seem reasonable to you
that something retarded their velocity, but the book does
not say that. We are told that Saruman knew that Gandalf had
Narya. It seems reasonable to me that Saruman would have
tried to take Gandalf's Ring (and sword) when he had Gandalf
captured, but he did not. Should I then assume (i.e. make up)
some reason for why this did not happen? Any reason I make up
is likely to be more tortured than the simple and obvious explanation
that this is just a detail Tolkien did not bother to think about.
:> Gandalf did survive the fall, even though
:> he "was burned".
:> "Long I fell, and he fell with me. His fire was about me.
:> I was burned."
: It depends on how hot the fire was. The fact that normal elves have been
: able to engage in direct hand-to-hand combat with Balrogs would seem to
: indicate that it was not very hot. I don't see a problem with any normal
: mortal surviving close contact with a not-very-hot fire for reasonable
So you are now assuming that the Balrog's fire was just for show?
"Normal" elves were not all that normal. They were apparently
far more resilient to hurt, and had far greater recuperative
powers than humans, and likely had armor and shields. Anyway,
all the examples of Elves fighting Balrogs were written
when Balrogs were clearly wingless creatures.
: periods of time. They'd have nasty burns all right, but it wouldn't
: necessarily be handicapping immediately.
Burns are extremely painful. And Gandalf was apparently
not handicapped much at all, immediatly or otherwise. He and the
Balrog fell and fought for eight days before he pursued
it to the peak of Zirak-zigil (which was likely a vertical
ascent of 10000 feet or so), where he fought the Balrog
for two more days. Gandalf was no mere mortal. There
is no mention of sleep or food in this 10 day battle.
Are you assuming the Balrog allowed Gandalf the luxury
of lunch breaks and naps?
Why do you assume that Gandalf could survive all that happened
after the fall, but not survive the fall itself?
Stephen
Bob F.
> Should I then assume (i.e. make up)
> some reason for why this did not happen? Any reason I make up
> is likely to be more tortured than the simple and obvious explanation
> that this is just a detail Tolkien did not bother to think about.
>
> Stephen
>
Torturous explanations are the lifeblood of this newsgroup, take them away
and none of the experts would have anything to say! :-)
Bob
TT Arvind
> Why do you assume that Gandalf could survive all that happened
> after the fall, but not survive the fall itself?
I'm not assuming this. Gandalf did *not* survive all that happened after
the fall. Exhaustion (eight-odd days of fighting), possible burns, and
other injuries are, in my reading, the reason he died.
It is possible to survive burns for a while, if they are not too severe.
I argue that the texts give us reason to believe that Balrogs' flames did
not cause severe burnes. Balrogs have been "fire demons" from a rather
early stage, and no texts about elves fighting them have mentioned burns.
Unless we assume that elves regularly donned fire-retardant armour or had
fireproof skin, it seems fairly clear that the Balrogs' fire did not
cause severe burns.
On the other hand, it is not possible to survive a long fall, whether you
are elf or human. Gandalf clearly survived the fall. An explanation of
this - consistent with the view that Balrogs had wings - is that the
use of the wings retarded the fall. I'm sure there's an explanation
better than "Tolkien never thought about it and it's yet another plot
hole in LoTR" or "Wizards could survive long falls" which is consistent
with the view that Balrogs do not have wings.
--
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you
take Hofstadter's Law into account.
Tamfiiris Entwife
> > i wish i knew the rules for your little game -
> > it looks quite amusing.
>
> good
> theres oxygen on this planet
i say we just BURN IT!
--
Tamf, lellow dwagin and CHOKLIT-eater at your service.
When you say 'I wrote a program that crashed Windows' people just stare
at you blankly and say 'Hey, I got those with the system for free'
(Linus Torvalds)
Robert J. Kolker
TT Arvind wrote:
> On the other hand, it is not possible to survive a long fall, whether you
> are elf or human. Gandalf clearly survived the fall. An explanation of
> this - consistent with the view that Balrogs had wings - is that the
> use of the wings retarded the fall. I'm sure there's an explanation
> better than "Tolkien never thought about it and it's yet another plot
> hole in LoTR" or "Wizards could survive long falls" which is consistent
> with the view that Balrogs do not have wings.
>
A fall to the center of the Earth would take 22 minutes.
Bob Kolker
ste...@nomail.com
: are elf or human.
Neither is it possible to fight non stop for ten days with no food
or sleep while suffering from nasty burns.
You give me evidence for your assertion, and I will give you
evidence for mine.
Stephen
TT Arvind
> Neither is it possible to fight non stop for ten days with no food
> or sleep while suffering from nasty burns.
I thought I had addressed this earlier? Very well. I have provided
evidence that the burns are not not likely to have been severe or nasty.
As regards the food or sleep, I am willing to accept that Gandalf had
more stamina than normal humans - we see evidence that the Istari had
enhanced abilities throught the LoTR. In my opinion, however,
whilst increased stamina is compatible with the nature of Istari as
revealed in UT, the ability to survive a long fall is not; because it
would negate the Istari's stated ability to be slain.
I accept that to prove this point, I'd have to show what JRRT's thoughts
on the Istari were at the time the relevant passages in the LoTR were
written, something I can't do because I haven't read most of HoME.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that unless HoME shows that the idea of the
Istari being susceptible to death like humans is later than the relevant
sections of the LoTR, this passage supports the notion of Balrogs having
prehensile wings.
--
Meneldil
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea --
massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a
source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least
expect it."
-- Gene "spaf" Spafford (1992)
coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<nos...@nono.no> wrote:
> Žį kvaš žat coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges:
>
> > > i wish i knew the rules for your little game -
> > > it looks quite amusing.
> >
> > good
> > theres oxygen on this planet
>
> i say we just BURN IT!
i am the god of hellfire
and i bring you
coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
nonsense
you can survive extremelt long falls
its the sudden stop at the end that gets you
ste...@nomail.com
:> Neither is it possible to fight non stop for ten days with no food
:> or sleep while suffering from nasty burns.
: I thought I had addressed this earlier? Very well. I have provided
: evidence that the burns are not not likely to have been severe or nasty.
: As regards the food or sleep, I am willing to accept that Gandalf had
: more stamina than normal humans - we see evidence that the Istari had
: enhanced abilities throught the LoTR. In my opinion, however,
: whilst increased stamina is compatible with the nature of Istari as
: revealed in UT, the ability to survive a long fall is not; because it
: would negate the Istari's stated ability to be slain.
You said "nasty burns" earlier. Your evidence that there would
be no burns is based soley on old texts involving wingless Balrogs
which do not describe injuries much at all to anyone. Is there
any description of Elves bleeding after their encounters with
Balrogs? Does that mean that Elves did not bleed? I think
the most specific thing we ever seen described is "wounds".
Do burns not count as wounds?
"Thus it was that he drew far ahead of the van of his host; and seeing
this the servants of Morgoth turned to bay, and there issued from
Angband Balrogs to aid them. There upon the confines of Dor Daedeloth,
the land of Morgoth, Feanor was surrounded, with few friends about him.
Long he fought on, and undismayed, though he was wrapped in fire
and wounded with many wounds; but at the last he was smitten to the
ground by Gothmog, Lord of Balrogs, whom Ecthelion after slew in Gondolin."
Feanor was "wrapped in fire and wounded with many wounds". Do you
think it reasonable to conclude that he was not burned?
In the battle with Glorfindel, the Balrog has a whip of flame,
but there is no mention of a general Balrog fire (were the old
Balrogs ever described as being fiery, or did they just have
whips of flame). We are told that Glorfindel's mail protected
him from its whip and claw. There is no description of any
sort of wound received by Glorfindel.
In any case, you said that it is not possible for a human or
elf to survive the fall. Not only does that not apply to Gandalf,
who is neither human or elf, it is not true. People have survived
falling out of airplanes. It is not common, but it has happened.
I know of no examples of someone being able to carry on hand to hand
combat for 10 days straight with no food or sleep. Why do you claim that
something that has happened in the real world is impossible
in Middle Earth, and that something that as far as I know
has never happened in the real world, is possible in Middle Earth?
Gandalf the White was impervious to axe, arrow and sword, or so
he says. Yet Gandalf the White also told Gwaihir not to drop
him. From this you conclude that the fall must be fatal. Why?
Why is he subject to physical damage from a fall, but physical
damage from an axe, arrow or sword?
Stephen
coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> evidence that the burns are not not likely to have been severe or nasty.
> As regards the food or sleep, I am willing to accept that Gandalf had
> more stamina than normal humans - we see evidence that the Istari had
healthy people can safely fast two to three weeks
and people have been able to go without sleep days at a time
though they start halluicinating and then become psychotic
the declarations that go with military honors
also show peoples ability to fight effectively
even with mortal wounds and horrorfic burns
> enhanced abilities throught the LoTR. In my opinion, however,
> whilst increased stamina is compatible with the nature of Istari as
> revealed in UT, the ability to survive a long fall is not; because it
> would negate the Istari's stated ability to be slain.
people have fallen thousands of feet and survived
depends on the nature of the surface they hit
and also how they hit
how they dissapaite that kinetic energy
> Nevertheless, it seems to me that unless HoME shows that the idea of the
> Istari being susceptible to death like humans is later than the relevant
> sections of the LoTR, this passage supports the notion of Balrogs having
> prehensile wings.
the balrog had a mane set alight
if balrogs were covered in long thick shadowy or fiery filaments
that can greatly increase its drag
Een Wilde Ier
> In rec.arts.books.tolkien TT Arvind <ttar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : žus cwęš ste...@nomail.com:
>
> :> Who knows? You are assuming a consistency in Middle Earth that
> :> may not be present.
>
> : From that perspective, we can explain everything away by saying: "Oh,
> : Tolkien is so inconsistent in the LoTR that this is probably just another
> : example." It seems to me that Gandalf's ability to survive a fall that
> : long would be a fairly critical plot hole, and contradict what Tolkien
> : expressly said elsewhere ("Do not drop me!"). It seems far more
> : reasonable to assume that *something* retarded their velocity.
>
> You are the one assuming things about the text that are not there.
> Gandalf did survive the fall, and there is no mention that his
> descent was somehow slowed. It may seem reasonable to you
> that something retarded their velocity, but the book does
> not say that.
Maybe Gandalf unfurled his umbrella?
Raven
news:mair_fheal-30...@c102.ppp.tsoft.com...
> > On the other hand, it is not possible to survive a long fall, whether
> > you
> nonsense
> you can survive extremelt long falls
Precisely. Astronauts and cosmonauts have been known to fall for months,
even more than a year, and suffer nothing more than some degradation of
bones and muscle tone. Even I have survived falling a few hundred meters
before I pulled.
> its the sudden stop at the end that gets you
Gandalf and the Balrog fell into deep water. A thousand-meter fall into
water would kill many people, but skilled cliff-divers seem able to hit the
water with sufficient skill to survive what would kill any other. I read
about a suicider off the Golden Gate bridge who only broke a finger.
Presumably Gandalf was either skilled enough to slide into the water in such
a way as to survive the splash, or he had more stamina than mortals, or
both.
Kirina.
Robert J. Kolker
Raven wrote:
>
> Precisely. Astronauts and cosmonauts have been known to fall for months,
> even more than a year, and suffer nothing more than some degradation of
> bones and muscle tone. Even I have survived falling a few hundred meters
> before I pulled.
That is an orbital free fall about a roundish planet.
Bob Kolker
AC
And Galadriel sang "A Spponful of Sugar" when she was healing him.
--
Aaron Clausen
the softrat
wrote:
>Žį kvaš žat coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges:
>
>> > i wish i knew the rules for your little game -
>> > it looks quite amusing.
>>
>> good
>> theres oxygen on this planet
>
>i say we just BURN IT!
California does not find that attitude fummy!
the softrat
Curmudgeon-at-Large
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
If the world was a logical place, *men* would ride horses
side-saddle.
Bill O'Meally
"TT Arvind" <ttar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a0b6d032...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> žus cwęš ste...@nomail.com:
>
> > Neither is it possible to fight non stop for ten days with no food
> > or sleep while suffering from nasty burns.
>
> I thought I had addressed this earlier? Very well. I have provided
> evidence that the burns are not not likely to have been severe or
nasty.
More of an opinion than evidence. I think Gandalf's statement 'I was
burned' is of understated significance. The most common reason for dying
after a large surface area burn is the massive infection that sets in.
Death occurs within one to two weeks if untreated. When they hit the
water and the Balrog became a 'thing of slime', it seems that its fire
was quenched (just an opinion :-)). Even if Gandalf suffered no more
burns after that point, the time-frame for Gandalf's death is just about
right.
--
Bill
"Wise fool"
Gandalf, THE TWO TOWERS
-- The Wise will remove 'se' to reply; the Foolish will not--
Steuard Jensen
<bnog77$3k0$1...@reader11.wxs.nl>:
> Steuard Jensen <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> schreef:
> > Quoth "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <nos...@nospam.nl>:
> > > Steuard Jensen <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> schreef:
> > > > there is certainly considerable disagreement about whether it
> > > > always had a wing-like shape.
> > > Is there a point in the story where the shadow turns into
> > > another shape[?]
> > The most significant point that I would raise is that the Balrog's
> > "man-shaped" body seems to be repeatedly described as being _inside_
> > the "shadow", not merely attached to it:
> >
> > "it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form"
> >
> > "From out of the shadow a red sword leaped flaming."
> > ...wings don't normally engulf the winged creature...
> That doesn't mean in any way that the Balrog could change shape; it
> would only mean that the shadows (and the wings) were part of its
> body.
I don't quite follow you there, which probably means that I wasn't
clear in describing the mental image that those phrases have always
painted for me. Let's see if I can do a little ASCII art and draw
them instead. :)
In fact, why don't I illustrate the crucial "shadow" comments in two
columns: one for my mental image, and one for my understanding of what
you are advocating. I'm basing that second column on the part of your
earlier post (discussed at length in my previous message and possibly
further below), where you said:
> > > The wings don't carry flames or burn themselves, so they look
> > > like shadows. So Tolkien came to the description: because there
> > > are wing-like shadows, it is suspected that there are true,
> > > tangible wings. And this suspicion is confirmed when the Balrog
> > > spreads its wings.
You later clarified some aspects of the word "shadow", showing how it
can describe someone who is backlit:
> A similar effect can be seen in a person standing in front of a
> large bonfire at night: such a person also seems to become a shadow.
As a word of warning, what follows will only look sensible when viewed
in a fixed-width font and with a column width of at least, er, 60
columns or so. If you don't have that, I suggest that you look up
this post on Google Groups and go to the "Original Usenet Format" link
at the right edge of the screen, just above the message body.
Let me know if I've misunderstood anything!
My Picture: My Understanding of Your Picture:
----------------------------------------------------------------
* "What is was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the
middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater;
and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it."
_____
/.....\
/.......\ B
|...B...| ...
\......./ .....
\_____/ .......
Here, 'B' denotes the "dark form" and the '.'s denote the "shadow".
In my column, the "shadow" is a cloudlike structure composed of some
sort of "palpable darkness"; the Balrog's body is literally in the
middle of it. In your column, my understanding is that the "shadow"
is a literal shadow (presumably cast at this point by the "great
fissure" filled with fire between the Balrog and the Fellowship); from
the Fellowship's perspective, the Balrog's body would be seen in the
middle of that dark background.
* "It came to the edge of the fire and the light faded as if a cloud
had bent over it."
_____ ^^^^^^^^^^???^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^/.....\^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^/.......\^^^^^^^ B
|...B...| ...
\......./ .....
\_____/ .......
Here, the '^'s denote the firey fissure. In my column, the
cloud-shaped "shadow" surrounding the Balrog has "bent over" the
fissure, dimming the light. In your column, to be honest, I have no
idea why the light dimmed. (The Balrog hasn't spread its wings yet,
and its main body hasn't crossed the fissure to where it could block
the light anyway.)
* "The Balrog reached the bridge. ...and the shadow about it reached
out like two vast wings."
_____
/.....\
/------.......------\
|..........B..........| B
\------.......------/ \---------^---------/
\_____/
In my column, the cloud-like "shadow" about the Balrog has reached out
in a shape similar to two vast wings. In your column, two "true,
tangible wings" have reached out from the Balrog; because it is now
backlit (against the firey fissure), the wings look like a dark
"shadow". (In this view, the word "shadow" that was first used to
describe a normal shadow on the wall is now being used to describe a
tangible object that is backlit.)
* "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"
_______
/.......\
/--------.........--------\
|.............B.............| B
\--------.........--------/ \------------^------------/
\_______/
In my column, the "shadow" (or "darkness") about the Balrog has grown
larger: in particular, the "wings" of the shadowy "cloud" have now
spread from wall to wall. In your column, the tangible wings have
spread from wall to wall. (I guess with your reading, "the darkness
grew" is taken as a natural consequence of "the fire in it seemed to
die", although that doesn't seem to fit with the conjunction "but".)
* "From out of the shadow a red sword leaped flaming."
_____/_ /
/..../..\ /
/--------.....|...--------\ |
|.............B.............| B
\--------.........--------/ \------------^------------/
\_______/
Here, the extra '/' characters denote the sword. In my column, the
sword has literally emerged "from out of the shadow." In your column,
the sword has emerged from the darkness caused by the backlit wings
blocking the light. (So either the word "shadow" is back to referring
to a normal "blocked light" shadow again, or the phrase "out of the
shadow" here just means that the sword has come forward relative to
the indistinct backlit physical form of the Balrog... though a bright
sword "like a stabbing tongue of fire" would have trouble getting lost
in the darkness anyway.)
* "With a terrible cry the Balrog fell forward, and its shadow plunged
down and vanished."
============___============ ===========================
========___/...\___======== ===========================
=======/.._..b.._..\======= ==========___b___==========
======|../ \___/ \..|====== ===== \--/ \--/ =====
\/ \/
Here, the '='s denote the chasm (or at least, the Balrog's edge of
it), and the 'b' denotes the Balrog's distant falling body. In my
column, the cloudlike "shadow" is being pulled down into the darkness
along with the Balrog (here, I have imagined that in the process of
happening, so that the remnants of the "wings" haven't finished
"flowing" off the edge into the gulf yet).
In your column, I'm honestly not sure which "shadow" the text would be
referring to: as the Balrog and its wings fall into the dark chasm,
there's no longer anything blocking the light (the "normal" shadow)
nor is there really much backlighting (which made the wings look like
a "shadow"). The best I could come up with was that the wings would
be sort of between the Fellowship and the dim light of the Balrog, so
I've drawn the wings in the process of "plunging down and vanishing".
Whew. So, two questions. First, have I given a reasonably accurate
representation of your mental image of what this passage is
describing? And second, have my illustrations helped you to
understand why I think my "amorphous cloudlike shadow-stuff" reading
is consistent with the text? (I don't expect to have convinced you!
I just want to know if you agree that it's one reasonable reading.)
(Don't get me wrong, it would be _nice_ if this pictoral explanation
of the "no wings" position made a convert of you! :) I feel that my
column is a more natural and more precise match to the text than yours
is at just about every step. But I understand that you might
disagree.)
Unfortunately, it's insanely late right now and I've spent far too
long writing (and drawing) this message already, so I'll have to put
off responding to your message point by point until later. Maybe this
pictoral overview discussion will make that discussion go more
smoothly when it does happen, however. :)
Steuard Jensen
Henriette
> ste...@nomail.com wrote:
> >
> > You are the one assuming things about the text that are not there.
> > Gandalf did survive the fall, and there is no mention that his
> > descent was somehow slowed. It may seem reasonable to you
> > that something retarded their velocity, but the book does
> > not say that.
>
> Maybe Gandalf unfurled his umbrella?
I wonder why everyone in a newsgroup largely dominated by people
coming from a Christian tradition, assumes he survived *in the flesh*.
Henriette
Henriette
Alas that It never rains in southern California
Henriette
Henriette
> held...@hotmail.com (Henriette) wrote:
>
> > Tamfiiris Entwife <nos...@nono.no> wrote in message
> news:<MPG.1a0a3a0a9...@news.online.no>...
> > > i wish i knew the rules for your little game -
> > > it looks quite amusing.
> >
> > It is quite amusing! We're quoting from songs. The last two quotes are
> > from Jesus Christ Superstar.
>
> or obscure movies
Obscure movies, yes! No way to Heaven but through the Book.
Henriette
Steuard Jensen
in Tolkien's writings:]
Quoth ste...@nomail.com in article
<bnrhvp$1mod$2...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>:
> Should I then assume (i.e. make up) some reason for why this did not
> happen? Any reason I make up is likely to be more tortured than the
> simple and obvious explanation that this is just a detail Tolkien
> did not bother to think about.
I see your point, and on some level, you're right: any answer we come
up with is "made up" rather than being Tolkien's own story. On the
other hand, trying to "figure out" explanations for out-of-place
elements in the stories was a large part of Tolkien's own creative
process. If the situation is limited enough, there may be only one or
two "solutions" that are consistent with everything in the published
texts. In those cases, it's not unreasonable for us to hope that we
could guess the very solution that Tolkien would have chosen if he
_had_ thought about the question.
This point is a large part of the idea behind my essay "Tolkien's
Parish: The Canonical Middle-earth". If you haven't read it, you can
find it on the web at:
http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/TolkParish.html
The essay isn't directly about this question, but it establishes a
framework in which we can try to "learn new things" about
Middle-earth. Yes, we're guessing, but the hope is that we can make
_educated_ guesses. :)
Steuard Jensen
coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
they never did get it straight whether there were five or four replicants
in roy battys strike team
coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> mair_...@yahoo.com (coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des
anges) wrote in message
news:<mair_fheal-30...@c101.ppp.tsoft.com>...
> > In article <be50318e.03103...@posting.google.com>,
> > held...@hotmail.com (Henriette) wrote:
> >
> > > Breathe deep while you sleep breathe deep
> >
> > northern california wheres theres no fires
> > and a cool sea breeze
> >
> > so pretty pretty no carbon monoxide or nicotine lung steam
> > or sulphur dioxide around here
>
> Alas that It never rains in southern California
what about green apples?
i have a titanium apple myself
Henriette
> In article <MPG.1a0b59ee2...@news.online.no>, Tamfiiris Entwife
> <nos...@nono.no> wrote:
>
> > Žį kvaš žat coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges:
> >
> > > theres oxygen on this planet
> >
> > i say we just BURN IT!
>
> i am the god of hellfire
> and i bring you
Bright eyes, burning like...
Henriette
Troels Forchhammer
Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> enriched us with:
>
> Raven wrote:
>>
>> Precisely. Astronauts and cosmonauts have been known to fall for
>> months,
;-)
> That is an orbital free fall about a roundish planet.
It is a fall. There is no discernible difference to the human body
(actually you've got the same forces at work).
And this happened in the Third Age - with a roundish planet and all.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail address is t.forch(a)mail.dk
ste...@nomail.com
: Een Wilde Ier <theu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bnrqa4$156mka$3...@ID-121201.news.uni-berlin.de>...
: Henriette
Because he continued to fight for a week after the fall, presumably
with his sword, which ended up on the top of the mountain with
his body. There is nothing to suggest that he was not physical
during his entire battle with the Balrog.
Stephen
coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
the last guy who opened that particular book
had his girlfriend possessed by a demon
cut off his own hand and replaced it with a chain saw
and with a shotgun and cadilac went to the middle ages
to fight undead armies
though i never did see the cadilac while investigating the deimos anomaly
coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
> in <bnrtgg$15m62i$3...@ID-76471.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> enriched us with:
> >
> > Raven wrote:
> >>
> >> Precisely. Astronauts and cosmonauts have been known to fall for
> >> months,
> [...]
>
> ;-)
>
> > That is an orbital free fall about a roundish planet.
>
> It is a fall. There is no discernible difference to the human body
> (actually you've got the same forces at work).
much air resistance in orbit?
coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
a tyger burning bright?
Colin Davies
>
> On the other hand, it is not possible to survive a long fall, whether you
Not entirely true of course, there are occasionally stories in the
press of people surviving very long falls, once from an aircraft if I
recall correctly,
Colin
TT Arvind
> people have fallen thousands of feet and survived
> depends on the nature of the surface they hit
> and also how they hit
> how they dissapaite that kinetic energy
This has happened when they fall into snow, IIRC, and that is entirely
different from falling into water.
> the balrog had a mane set alight
> if balrogs were covered in long thick shadowy or fiery filaments
> that can greatly increase its drag
This is a good point. Thank you.
--
Meneldil
Weiner's Law of Libraries: There are no answers, only cross-references.
TT Arvind
> Not entirely true of course, there are occasionally stories in the
> press of people surviving very long falls, once from an aircraft if I
> recall correctly,
I think that was a case of falling into around thirty metres of snow,
which is very different from falling into water.
--
Meneldil
If a deaf person swears, does his mother wash his hands with soap?
Tamfiiris Entwife
> the balrog had a mane set alight
> if balrogs were covered in long thick shadowy or fiery filaments
> that can greatly increase its drag
or if it was attached to a thick string. Gandalf caught hold of it, and
they both ended up bungee jumping. that would explain a lot of things -
their fall would feel like a small eternity, for one.
--
Tamf, lellow dwagin and CHOKLIT-eater at your service.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife
Nor the ox her husband bought her;
But thank the Lord you're not forbidden
To covet your neighbour's daughter
The American
"Henriette" <held...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:be50318e.03102...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > > > shadows
> > > > > or john travolta playing yet another annoying prat
> >
> > > > "What do you mean by that
> > > > that is not an answer
> > > > Who is this unfortunate"
> >
> > > your words
> > > not mine
> >
> > i wish i knew the rules for your little game -
> > it looks quite amusing.
>
> It is quite amusing! We're quoting from songs. The last two quotes are
> from Jesus Christ Superstar.
>
What the heck is a "jaded Mandarin" anyway?
And I hope your quoting the play and not the movie abomination!
:-)
T.A.
The American
"coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
news:mair_fheal-31...@c116.ppp.tsoft.com...
Well, hello Mr. Fancy Pants.
T.A.
AC
Because he and the Balrog managed to make it to the top of Zirak-zagil and
have the final confrontation there, where the Balrog was cast down and then
Gandalf died. It was there that Gwahir found him after his return and
brought him to Lorien.
--
Aaron Clausen