Balrogs
D@vide Carboni
Gandalf broke the bridge ??
Josep
D@vide Carboni escribió en mensaje
<6rv54i$aa9$2...@server-b.cs.interbusiness.it>...
>if Balrogs have wings why did Moria Balrog fall down when
>Gandalf broke the bridge ??
>
"like two wings" -sorry, I don't have my books available. This is not the
same as saiying that the Balrog HAD wings. Besides, wings are not
necessarily strictly related to flight. Take penguins or kiwis, for
instance.
Michael Martinez
>if Balrogs have wings why did Moria Balrog fall down when
>Gandalf broke the bridge ??
Gravity dictates that if you drop a bridge out from under something, the thing
will at first fall. Your question could be rephrased as, "Why didn't the
Balrog just fly out of the chasm?" At least, others have asked THAT
particular question.
It makes no sense for a Balrog with wings that spread from wall to wall of the
great chamber through which the chasm runs to be able to fly in the chasm
itself. There is no indication the Balrog had the room to fly in the cave,
let alone somehow come soaring out of the chasm.
And the fact that it chose to drag Gandalf down with it rather than scramble
to stay out of the chasm indicates it wasn't too concerned about getting out
of the place, whether by flight or flailing.
This topic, btw, has been known to spawn endless semantical discussions which
accomplish nothing. The hard heads in one camp are simply not going to give
an inch of ground to the hard heads in the other camp.
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
//\\ <http://www.xenite.org/index.htm>
// \\ENITE.org...............................................
Mark Wells
Martinez) wrote:
>In article <6rv54i$aa9$2...@server-b.cs.interbusiness.it>, "D@vide Carboni" <em...@mail.dex-net.com> wrote:
>>if Balrogs have wings why did Moria Balrog fall down when
>>Gandalf broke the bridge ??
>
>Gravity dictates that if you drop a bridge out from under something, the thing
>will at first fall. Your question could be rephrased as, "Why didn't the
>Balrog just fly out of the chasm?" At least, others have asked THAT
>particular question.
And, as you point out, discussion on this topic generally proves to be
futile. I think we might be taking a risk simply by responding to the
question at all.
>It makes no sense for a Balrog with wings that spread from wall to wall of the
>great chamber through which the chasm runs to be able to fly in the chasm
>itself. There is no indication the Balrog had the room to fly in the cave,
>let alone somehow come soaring out of the chasm.
>
>And the fact that it chose to drag Gandalf down with it rather than scramble
>to stay out of the chasm indicates it wasn't too concerned about getting out
>of the place, whether by flight or flailing.
I think this is probably the most important point. The Balrog came
out of the fall in good enough condition to keep fighting and running
for several days. (And it *knew* that it would survive the fall; it
constructed its body in the first place.) Gandalf was, from its
perspective, the most important target, and it saw an opportunity to
keep him from escaping.
But this is a dangerous topic. We really shouldn't bring it up here.
------------------------------------------------
"Parents give up their rights when they
drop the children off at public school."
-- Melinda Harmon, Spineless Federal Judge, 1996
Mark Wells -- ma...@pc-intouch.com
Replies by email are welcome
!**?#!#$
the thing
> ) will at first fall. Your question could be rephrased as, "Why didn't the
I rather doubt that applies to winged animals, such as birds. My memory is
that their feet extend until they open their wings and start flapping.
Very little dropping, and certainly no "...fell forward, and its shadow
plunged down and vanished."
> ) And the fact that it chose to drag Gandalf down with it rather than
scramble
> ) to stay out of the chasm indicates it wasn't too concerned about
getting out
> ) of the place, whether by flight or flailing.
Sort of like Ecthelion pushed Gothmog into the fountain indicates he
wasn't too concerned about getting out. Sounds like a desparate act of
striking from the gates of hell, as they say.
--
They wait apart in waning day, | I don't use no smilies.
the flare of crimson fades to gray. | smj...@my-dejanews.com
They rest their violence, the rest is silence.| www.geocities.com
Their empty years are ash and clay. | /SoHo/Studios/5079/index.html
Loznik
oversimplified thus:
[attack of the snipper monster]
>
>Sort of like Ecthelion pushed Gothmog into the fountain indicates he
>wasn't too concerned about getting out. Sounds like a desparate act of
>striking from the gates of hell, as they say.
>
Weelll, an Elf's gotta do what an Elf's gotta do ...
Loznik {:-)>
"If I'd known they'd get that excited, I would have killed Picard as
well." - Malcolm McDowell, in response to hearing of death threats
directed at him after his appearance in "Star Trek Generations".
Michael Martinez
smj...@my-dejanews.com says...
>
>> ) Gravity dictates that if you drop a bridge out from under something,
>> ) "Why didn't the
>I rather doubt that applies to winged animals, such as birds. My memory is
>that their feet extend until they open their wings and start flapping.
>Very little dropping, and certainly no "...fell forward, and its shadow
>plunged down and vanished."
Birds have to work against gravity, too, and they too can fall. Imagine a bird
falling into a crevice which is too small for it to fly in and then ask, "why
didn't the bird fly out of the crevice?"
>> ) And the fact that it chose to drag Gandalf down with it rather than
>> ) scramble to stay out of the chasm indicates it wasn't too concerned
>> ) about getting out of the place, whether by flight or flailing.
>
>Sort of like Ecthelion pushed Gothmog into the fountain indicates he
>wasn't too concerned about getting out. Sounds like a desparate act of
>striking from the gates of hell, as they say.
As has been pointed out more than once in the past, the Balrog knew what lay at
the bottom of the crevasse. Gandalf told Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas that it
had explored all the deep ways beneath the mountain. Why should it have been
desperate, seeing that it was a creature which could not easily be killed to
begin with? The Balrog had survived all the wars of the First Age and previous
ages -- one confrontation with a wizard on a bridge doesn't seem like much when
compared to confrontations with the Host of Valinor.
mrev...@hotmail.com
"Josep" <p...@megaiweb.com> wrote:
>
> D@vide Carboni escribió en mensaje
> <6rv54i$aa9$2...@server-b.cs.interbusiness.it>...
> >Gandalf broke the bridge ??
> >
> "like two wings" -sorry, I don't have my books available. This is not the
> same as saiying that the Balrog HAD wings. Besides, wings are not
> necessarily strictly related to flight. Take penguins or kiwis, for
> instance.
That's a great image, the fellowship has crossed the bridge they turn feeling
the approach of an ominous force, out of the darkness of Moria carrying a
flaming sword waddles a sixteen foot tall penguin........
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Robert Moore
> > "like two wings" -sorry, I don't have my books available. This is not the
> > same as saiying that the Balrog HAD wings. Besides, wings are not
> > necessarily strictly related to flight. Take penguins or kiwis, for
> > instance.
>
> That's a great image, the fellowship has crossed the bridge they turn feeling
> the approach of an ominous force, out of the darkness of Moria carrying a
> flaming sword waddles a sixteen foot tall penguin........
Softly humming, "Doobie, doobie, doo..."
Rob Moore
!**?#!#$
> ) >that their feet extend until they open their wings and start flapping.
> ) >Very little dropping, and certainly no "...fell forward, and its shadow
> ) >plunged down and vanished."
> )
> ) Birds have to work against gravity, too, and they too can fall.
Do try to keep to the point. Snap the support a bird is sitting on. Does
it "fall forward" and drop like a stone? Maybe you should get out and
watch what animals really do.
> ) As has been pointed out more than once in the past, the Balrog knew
what lay at
Stop interpretting and start reading. The Balrog knew the secret ways of
Khazad-Dum. What was at the bottom of the abyss was not Khazad-Dum. It is
not stating explicitly if the Balrog knew the way back up, or, running
from Gandalf, he blindly stumbled onto it.
> ) desperate, seeing that it was a creature which could not easily be killed to
> ) begin with? The Balrog had survived all the wars of the First Age and
previous
> ) ages -- one confrontation with a wizard on a bridge doesn't seem like
much when
> ) compared to confrontations with the Host of Valinor.
If it had confronted the Host of Valinor, would have survived to flee to
Moria? We're dealing with runner.
Barrie Cameron
>
> > ) Gravity dictates that if you drop a bridge out from under something,
> > ) will at first fall. Your question could be rephrased as, "Why didn't the
>
> I rather doubt that applies to winged animals, such as birds. My memory is
I agree.
>
> > ) And the fact that it chose to drag Gandalf down with it rather than
> scramble
> > ) to stay out of the chasm indicates it wasn't too concerned about
> getting out
> > ) of the place, whether by flight or flailing.
Maybe, but ...
Are we sure that Balrogs have wings ? The Balrog is descibed (TFOTR,
TBOK) as being "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".
Then after several paragraphs in which the Balrog is described leaping
over the fissure and running towards them he describes at the bridge :
"His (Gandalf's) enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it
reached out like two vast wings". The operative word here for me is
"like". The previous description is of leaping, running, etc. Birds do
not "halt", don't they land or hover?
Then when it stepped onto the bridge :
"...the darkness grew..." "...and suddenly it drew itself up to a great
height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall..." for me Tolkien
is speaking figuratively, the "wings" being the Balrogs power of
darkness that it wielded like a weapon and extends to a maximum to
threaten its foe.
If you have evidence, perhaps from elsewhere in Tolkien's writings, that
this interpretation is in error and that they were in fact wings, please
let me know.
Cheers.
--
Barrie I. CAMERON
Electrical Engineer
<bar...@actrix.gen.nz>
John R. Cooper
>
>D@vide Carboni escribió en mensaje
><6rv54i$aa9$2...@server-b.cs.interbusiness.it>...
>>if Balrogs have wings why did Moria Balrog fall down when
>>Gandalf broke the bridge ??
>>
>IIRC, Tolkien states that the darkness that surrounded the Balrog spread
>"like two wings" -sorry, I don't have my books available. This is not the
>same as saiying that the Balrog HAD wings. Besides, wings are not
>necessarily strictly related to flight. Take penguins or kiwis, for
>instance.
Read a little further (past the initial description of the Balrog) and
you'll see that it spreads its wings to fill the entire chamber before
leaping onto the bridge. The text itself states quite clearly that the
Balrog had wings.
- John
John R. Cooper
wrote:
>Then when it stepped onto the bridge :
>"...the darkness grew..." "...and suddenly it drew itself up to a great
>height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall..." for me Tolkien
>is speaking figuratively, the "wings" being the Balrogs power of
>darkness that it wielded like a weapon and extends to a maximum to
>threaten its foe.
>
>If you have evidence, perhaps from elsewhere in Tolkien's writings, that
>this interpretation is in error and that they were in fact wings, please
>let me know.
In the darkness of the chamber, the Balrog was, at first, more shadow
than details, including its wings, and that is what Tolkien was trying to
convey in the initial description. As it lept forward and "presented"
itself in all its terrifying glory, the details emerged, and the shadows
were revealed to be wings.
It seems more sensible to me (Occam's Razor here) that it had wings and
not some kind of Darkness Control power. Furthermore, every artistic
interpretation of a Balrog I've ever seen gives it wings. Every Balrog
clone I've ever seen (in RPGs for instance) has wings (e.g., the AD&D Balor
demon). Are you suggesting that this is a case of mass reader
misinterpretation?
- John
Michael Martinez
>> ) >I rather doubt that applies to winged animals, such as birds. My memory is
>> ) >that their feet extend until they open their wings and start flapping.
>> ) >Very little dropping, and certainly no "...fell forward, and its shadow
>> ) >plunged down and vanished."
>> )
>> ) Birds have to work against gravity, too, and they too can fall.
>
>Do try to keep to the point.
Try to stop changing the point, okay? We're talking about Balrogs and whether
one should have flown out of the chasm into which it dragged Gandalf.
>Snap the support a bird is sitting on. Does it "fall forward" and drop
>like a stone? Maybe you should get out and watch what animals really do.
Maybe you should stop to consider that if the bird falls into a crevice where
it cannot extend it wings, that it probably won't fly. Furthermore, if that
bird maliciously strikes out with a whip to entangle an enemy so as to drag
that enemy to the bottom of the hole, it may not WANT to fly -- particularly
if that bird, having explored all the ways of the hole already, knows it will
not die when it reaches the bottom.
>> ) As has been pointed out more than once in the past, the Balrog knew
>what lay at
>
>Stop interpretting and start reading.
No one is interpreting, which if you had consulted the book before you started
blustering into weak insults you'd realize. Gandalf says clearly and
distinctly:
"'We fought far under the living earth, where time is not counted. Ever
he clutched at me, and ever I hewed him, till at last he fled into dark
tunnels. They were not made by Durin's folk, Gimli son of Gloing. Far,
far below the deepest delvings of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by
nameless things. Even Sauron knows them not. They are older than he.
Now I have walked there, but I will bring no report to darken the light
of day. In that despair my enemy was my only hope, and I pursued him,
clutching at his heel. Thus he brought me back at last to the secret
ways of Khazad-dum: too well he knew them all. Ever up now we went,
until we came to the Endless Stair.'"
(From "The White Rider" in THE TWO TOWERS)
>The Balrog knew the secret ways of Khazad-Dum. What was at the bottom of the
>abyss was not Khazad-Dum. It is not stating explicitly if the Balrog knew the
>way back up, or, running from Gandalf, he blindly stumbled onto it.
Oh, of course. The word "blindly" is secretly embedded between the last two
sentences. How stupid of all of us to have missed that through all these
years.
Never mind the fact that Gandalf doesn't say the Balrog was lost. Never mind
the fact that Gandalf doesn't say anything about the Balrog stumbling around
in the dark. Never mind the fact that Gandalf doesn't express any doubt or
wonder about the Balrog's ability to find its way back to Khazad-dum, even
though it was his only hope.
You would have us believe you know the story better than Tolkien.
Thank you for that elucidation. Our eyes are opened now!
>> ) desperate, seeing that it was a creature which could not easily be killed
>> ) to begin with? The Balrog had survived all the wars of the First Age and
>> ) previous ages -- one confrontation with a wizard on a bridge doesn't seem
>> ) like much when compared to confrontations with the Host of Valinor.
>
>If it had confronted the Host of Valinor, would have survived to flee to
>Moria? We're dealing with runner.
We're dealing with Tolkien's stories, which you obviously haven't read in a
while. I suggest you consult the texts more closely, without any preconceived
notions. Take a look at the section in THE SILMARILLION which says "the
Balrogs were destroyed, save some few that fled and hid themselves in caverns
inaccessible at the roots of the earth...."
Try reading the books more and looking for fights less, okay?
Michael Martinez
>> > ) And the fact that it chose to drag Gandalf down with it rather than
>> scramble
>> > ) to stay out of the chasm indicates it wasn't too concerned about
>> getting out
>> > ) of the place, whether by flight or flailing.
>
>Maybe, but ...
>
>Are we sure that Balrogs have wings ? The Balrog is descibed (TFOTR,
>TBOK) as being "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".
Yes, Balrogs have wings. This was hotly debated not too long ago. Do the
wings have feathers? Probably not. Tolkien doesn't mention them.
Check Dejanews for the lengthy citations from the books about the wings, the
flying Balrogs passing over Hithlum, etc.
!**?#!#$
whether
> ) one should have flown out of the chasm into which it dragged Gandalf.
Would a bird fall into crevice?
> ) >abyss was not Khazad-Dum. It is not stating explicitly if the Balrog
knew the
> ) >way back up, or, running from Gandalf, he blindly stumbled onto it.
> )
> ) Oh, of course. The word "blindly" is secretly embedded between the
last two
> ) sentences. How stupid of all of us to have missed that through all these
> ) years.
You seem to have a problem parsing conjunctions. "X or blindly Y" is not
equivalent to "blinding Y". I did not state that the Balrog did not know
what was under Moria, merely that it was not explicitly stated that it
was.
Claiming that the Balrog did indeed know is unsupported interpretation.
> ) Never mind the fact that Gandalf doesn't say the Balrog was lost. Never
Doesn't say the Balrog knew where it was. Either. Choosing one alternative
is interpretation. I did not interpreted, I presented alternatives.
> ) in the dark. Never mind the fact that Gandalf doesn't express any doubt or
> ) wonder about the Balrog's ability to find its way back to Khazad-dum, even
> ) though it was his only hope.
Doesn't say Gandalf was expecting a way out either. It was an unplanned
detour, and it does sound like his primary concern was immediate survival,
"Ever he clutched at me, and ever I hewed him,..."
> ) You would have us believe you know the story better than Tolkien.
What? And displace you? Sacriledge.
> ) Balrogs were destroyed, save some few that fled and hid themselves in
caverns
> ) inaccessible at the roots of the earth...."
Our particular pet Balrog flew from the ruin of Angband. Doesn't
explicitly said he fought and ran or just ran. (That's another OR,
Micheal. Do try to parse it correctly.)
!**?#!#$
Yes. Please do.
!**?#!#$
Don't try sarcasm. It's a pathetic exhibition.
Michael Martinez
smj...@my-dejanews.com says...
>
>> ) Try reading the books more and looking for fights less, okay?
>
>Yes. Please do.
In case it wasn't clear the first time, that request was intended solely for
you, as you appear to be lecturing us on Tolkien without bothering to consult
the texts.
Michael Martinez
>whether
>> ) one should have flown out of the chasm into which it dragged Gandalf.
>
>Would a bird fall into crevice?
Unless they've learned to float without flapping their wings, then given
circumstances similar to the scene in THE LORD OF THE RINGS where Gandalf breaks
the bridge out from under the Balrog, if a nasty ole wizard struck a bridge out
from under a little birdy wordy, and the crevice or chasm beneath the birdy
wordy were too narrow for it to flap its wings and fly, or the birdy wordy want
to use its many-pronged whip to lash out at the nasty wizard and draw it down
into the chasm so that it could envelop him with its fire, then, yes, it would
fall into the crevice.
But that's all purely hypothetical, isn't it?
>> ) >abyss was not Khazad-Dum. It is not stating explicitly if the Balrog
>> ) >knew the way back up, or, running from Gandalf, he blindly stumbled
>> ) >onto it.
>> )
>> ) Oh, of course. The word "blindly" is secretly embedded between the
>> ) last two sentences. How stupid of all of us to have missed that
>> ) through all these years.
>
>You seem to have a problem parsing conjunctions.
No, but you have demonstrated a reading comprehension problem.
>"X or blindly Y" is not equivalent to "blinding Y". I did not state that the
>Balrog did not know what was under Moria, merely that it was not explicitly
>stated that it was.
Agreed. That is what you stated. Of course, the poor Balrog, having been found
under Moria, and having explored all its secret ways, couldn't possibly have
explored any of the places beneath Moria in the more than 1,000 years since it
had been freed. Therefore we should just blow away bandwidth arguing over
whether the Balrog got lost when it fell into the chasm. Right?
>Claiming that the Balrog did indeed know is unsupported interpretation.
Nope. If there were any contrary evidence it would have been cited by now. No
one has managed to do that in all these years.
>> ) Never mind the fact that Gandalf doesn't say the Balrog was lost. Never
>
>Doesn't say the Balrog knew where it was. Either. Choosing one alternative
>is interpretation. I did not interpreted, I presented alternatives.
What you presented was nonsense, and an attempt to derail the discussion. Does
the text say the Balrog had spent time down there? Yes. Does the text say it
was lost? No. If the text doesn't say it, then there is no point in suggesting
something as "an alternative". It's not an alternative -- it's outside the text
and the scope of the discussion.
I don't care to get into what you think are alternatives to Tolkien's work.
>>) in the dark. Never mind the fact that Gandalf doesn't express any doubt or
>> ) wonder about the Balrog's ability to find its way back to Khazad-dum, even
>> ) though it was his only hope.
>
>Doesn't say Gandalf was expecting a way out either. It was an unplanned
>detour, and it does sound like his primary concern was immediate survival,
>"Ever he clutched at me, and ever I hewed him,..."
Sounds more like his primary concern was keeping the Balrog away from the Ring,
but, hey, that's just MY interpretation.
>> ) You would have us believe you know the story better than Tolkien.
>
>What? And displace you? Sacriledge.
Where have I ever claimed to know the story better than Tolkien? At least I do
him the courtesy of citing him -- if you did the same you would have less reason
to resort to snide remarks and singularly extrapolative ruminations.
>> ) Balrogs were destroyed, save some few that fled and hid themselves in
>> ) caverns inaccessible at the roots of the earth...."
>
>Our particular pet Balrog flew from the ruin of Angband. Doesn't
>explicitly said he fought and ran or just ran. (That's another OR,
>Micheal. Do try to parse it correctly.)
You seem to be totally incapable of picking up a book and reading it. Why is
that? Do you really enjoy having your ignorance exposed on Usenet? You don't
know what you are talking about. At least take the time to do a little
homework. I promise you, it won't break your fingers to pick up a book and
check your "facts" before you start posting them.
Go back and reread the texts:
App. A III:
"The Dwarves delved deep at that time ... Thus they roused from sleep
a thing of terror that, flying from Thangorodrim, had lain hidden at
the foundations of the earth since the coming of the Host of the West:
a Balrog of Morgoth. Durin was slain by it, and in the year after Nain
I, his son; and then the glory of Moria passed, and its people were
destroyed or fled far away."
In THE LOST ROAD AND OTHER WRITINGS Christopher writes the following
concerning section 16 of "The Conclusion of the *Quenta Silmarillion*":
"$16 In my view there is no question that the words (not in Q)
'save some few [Balrogs] that fled and hid themselves in caverns
inaccessible at the roots of the earth' preceded by a good while
the Balrog of Moria (there is in any case evidence that a Balrog
was not my father's original conception of Gandalf's adversary
on the Bridge of Khazad-dum). It was, I believe, the idea --
first appearing here -- that some Balrogs had survived the ancient
world in the deep places of Middle-earth that led to the Balrog
of Moria. In this connection a letter of my father's written
in April 1954 (LETTERS no. 144, p. 180) is interesting:
"[The Balrogs] wete supposed to have been all destroyed
in the overthrow of Thangorodrim...But it is here found...
that one had survived and taken refuge under the mountains
of Hithaeglin [*sic*]."
Tolkien described him as a survivor, but I suppose you'll go on to argue with
him on this point, too, won't you?
!**?#!#$
> ) >
> ) >Yes. Please do.
> )
> ) In case it wasn't clear the first time, that request was intended solely for
> ) you, as you appear to be lecturing us on Tolkien without bothering to
consult
> ) the texts.
And in case it was clear to you, why don't you look for fights less? Or do
you not willing to finish what you start?
!**?#!#$
> )
> ) Unless they've learned to float without flapping their wings, then given
Why wouldn't they flap their wings? Are you going around tying down bird
wings, cutting their tendons? Are do you just do that here?
> ) Agreed. That is what you stated. Of course, the poor Balrog, having
been found
> ) under Moria, and having explored all its secret ways, couldn't possibly have
> ) explored any of the places beneath Moria in the more than 1,000 years
since it
> ) had been freed. Therefore we should just blow away bandwidth arguing over
> ) whether the Balrog got lost when it fell into the chasm. Right?
Gee, for somebody who's so quick and nasty about pointing out other
people's "interpretations", you sure seeming forgiving about your own.
Doesn't say he explored any place under Moria. Doesn't describe his route
after he was awakenned. Just your interpretation.
> ) Nope. If there were any contrary evidence it would have been cited by
now.
Give me contrary evidence dwarves lived above ground. Sorry, must be
pedantic or you'll have another pissy fit. Give me contrary evidence
dwarves established permanent residences above the surface, with no living
rock forming a substantial portion of the walls and roofs of such
habitation.
Give me contrary evidence Gandalf ever went south of the Harnen.
> ) What you presented was nonsense, and an attempt to derail the discussion.
This is not your property. This not your classroom. You do not decide what
I may or may not present.
> ) was lost? No. If the text doesn't say it, then there is no point in
The text doesn't say the balrog knew either. If the text doesn't say it,....
> ) Sounds more like his primary concern was keeping the Balrog away from
the Ring,
Uh, right. After falling into the abyss, it is obvious that's Gandalf's
primary concern, was "now how do I keep this Balrog from running out the
Dimrill Gate and past Lorien toward Gondor."
> ) to resort to snide remarks and singularly extrapolative ruminations.
Live with it, Disney boy.
There's an old saying: Live and let live. Leave me alone and I'll leave
you alone.
> ) a thing of terror that, flying from Thangorodrim, had lain hidden at
> ) the foundations of the earth since the coming of the Host of the West:
Yea. It ran away. Or flapped away. Doesn't say if he fought first. That's
your interpretation.
> ) Tolkien described him as a survivor, but I suppose you'll go on to argue
Some people survive by running away without fighting. When the Balrog fell
forward I really don't know if it lashed out in fear and desperation or if
it really thought it could kill Gandalf. You apparently do, but since you
only go by what is written, I wish I could have access to those
unpublished stories. I sure everybody else would also like access to them.
Brian E. Clark
<Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
> > Claiming that the Balrog did indeed know is unsupported
> > interpretation.
>
> Nope. If there were any contrary evidence it would have been
> cited by now. No one has managed to do that in all these years.
I do not think your intrepretation is "unsupported," because I
think it follows from reasonable assumptions. Still, it is an
interpretation, based on non-textual suppositions, and that fact
should not be dismissed. So imagine my surprise in noticing your
implicit dismissal of it. :)
Perhaps no contrary evidence has been found. What of it? No
supporting textual evidence has ever been offered, either.
Rather, you have presented a supporting argument. You cannot
provide direct evidence because Tolkien neither stated nor
implied that the Balrog knew his way. You deduced that Balrog
knew how to thread his way through the subMorian strata, as this
was the idea that fitted the text most naturally. But it is not
to be found in the text itself.
Quite apart from the legitimate inferences, we can easily dismiss
such misfires as the following: "Never mind the fact that Gandalf
doesn't say the Balrog was lost. Never mind the fact that
Gandalf doesn't say anything about the Balrog stumbling around in
the dark..." and so forth. Perhaps you noticed that Gandalf
didn't deny that a luminous bonobo chimp led the Balrog through
the caves? Does that does not lend the idea any validity?
Likewise, Gandalf's failing to say that the Balrog did not know
his way cannot substantiate the idea the Balrog did know his way,
and vice versa. More generally, your personal notions about what
Tolkien would have written, had he meant to convey a certain
idea, do not form strong support for any idea that lies external
to the text. You are not he.
Thus the following rings with deafening irony:
> Does the text say the Balrog had spent time down there? Yes.
> Does the text say it was lost? No. If the text doesn't say it,
> then there is no point in suggesting something as "an alternative".
> It's not an alternative -- it's outside the text and the scope of
> the discussion.
Does the text say the Balrog knew his way? No. Follow your own
advice here. You insist that one person's extra-textual notion
cannot be an alternative precisely because it's outside the text.
Why isn't your own extra-textual notion subject to that filter?
> I don't care to get into what you think are alternatives to
> Tolkien's work.
Here you blatantly conflate Martinez with Tolkien. Tolkien did
not address the point in question, and both positions discussed
are alternatives (though I find the "he knew" alternative far
more likely). It would seem that assailing Martinez's opinion now
amounts to assailing Tolkien's work. Surely you can do without
this conceit? ;-)
--
Brian E. Clark
brian<at>telerama<dot>com
____________________________________________________
Il faut aller voir.
Michael Martinez
smj...@my-dejanews.com says...
>And in case it was clear to you, why don't you look for fights less? Or do
>you not willing to finish what you start?
You're the only person who started this little go-round -- if you think you're
fooling anyone into believing otherwise, well, you've already demonstrated how
thoroughly you check your facts. I'll let your record speak for itself.
O'Neill Quigley
"Birdy wordy"sounds like an educated parrot......
Mind you, if the cap fits......
O'Neill Quigley
argument. Kiss and make up.
!**?#!#$
> ) argument. Kiss and make up.
I already tried.
!**?#!#$
You mean like,
> Subject: Re: Elfs and Dwarfs: why do they hate each other?
> Date: 5 Aug 1998 00:00:00 GMT
> From: smj...@my-dejanews.com (!**?#!#$)
> Organization: Little Shop of Hours
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
> References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12
>
>
>
>
> Harrumph.
> Since I started this....
> Micheal brings a great deal of learning and intelligence to the
> discussion, I have no problem with his enjoyment is slightly different
> than mine. I just don't need someone waiting in the shadows to pounce on
> me.
> --
> They wait apart in waning day, | I don't use no smilies.
> the flare of crimson fades to gray. | smj...@my-dejanews.com
> They rest their violence, the rest is silence.| www.geocities.com
> Their empty years are ash and clay. | /SoHo/Studios/5079/index.html
You're right: I was wrong to assume you would leave aside your arrogance.
Give what you want to receive.
rdb...@my-dejanews.com
smj...@my-dejanews.com (!**?#!#$) wrote:
> > ) >I rather doubt that applies to winged animals, such as birds. My memory
is
> > ) >that their feet extend until they open their wings and start flapping.
> > ) >Very little dropping, and certainly no "...fell forward, and its shadow
> > ) >plunged down and vanished."
> > )
> > ) Birds have to work against gravity, too, and they too can fall.
>
> it "fall forward" and drop like a stone? Maybe you should get out and
> watch what animals really do.
>
> what lay at
>
> Khazad-Dum. What was at the bottom of the abyss was not Khazad-Dum. It is
> not stating explicitly if the Balrog knew the way back up, or, running
> from Gandalf, he blindly stumbled onto it.
>
> > ) desperate, seeing that it was a creature which could not easily be killed
> > ) begin with? The Balrog had survived all the wars of the First Age and
> previous
> > ) ages -- one confrontation with a wizard on a bridge doesn't seem like
> much when
> > ) compared to confrontations with the Host of Valinor.
>
> If it had confronted the Host of Valinor, would have survived to flee to
> Moria? We're dealing with runner.
>
the first age. He's only been free since the Dwarves "dug too deep" a few
hundred (?, third age anyway) years earlier.
> --
> They wait apart in waning day, | I don't use no smilies.
> the flare of crimson fades to gray. | smj...@my-dejanews.com
> They rest their violence, the rest is silence.| www.geocities.com
> Their empty years are ash and clay. | /SoHo/Studios/5079/index.html
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
O'Neill Quigley
Well, you can only try, I s'pose.
Michael Martinez
>> )
>> ) Unless they've learned to float without flapping their wings, then given
>
>Why wouldn't they flap their wings?
Because there ain't no room. If we're going to talk about birds in a balrog
passage, we have to make the birds' circumstances similar to the balrog's. It's
that simple.
>> ) Agreed. That is what you stated. Of course, the poor Balrog, having
>> ) been found under Moria, and having explored all its secret ways,
>> ) couldn't possibly have explored any of the places beneath Moria in
>> ) the more than 1,000 years since it had been freed. Therefore we
>> ) should just blow away bandwidth arguing over whether the Balrog got
>> ) lost when it fell into the chasm. Right?
>
>Gee, for somebody who's so quick and nasty about pointing out other
>people's "interpretations", you sure seeming forgiving about your own.
Fine. We'll INTERPRET the passage this way, with your approval, of course: The
Balrog, having been under Moria, having controlled Moria and its passages for
over a thousand years, had absolutely no clue about the chasm in the Second Hall
and therefore went blindly to its doom as a pure matter of plot device.
>Doesn't say he explored any place under Moria. Doesn't describe his route
>after he was awakenned. Just your interpretation.
The book says he was FOUND UNDER MORIA. How many times are you going to insist
that Tolkien is wrong on a point? And since I didn't offer any routes after he
was awakened, what exactly is "just my interpretation"?
Never mind. This argument is obviously beyond you.
>> ) Nope. If there were any contrary evidence it would have been cited by
>> )now.
>
>Give me contrary evidence dwarves lived above ground. Sorry, must be
>pedantic or you'll have another pissy fit.
"pissy fit". Oooo! That cut REALLY deep. That was SO SMART OF YOU.
>Give me contrary evidence dwarves established permanent residences
>above the surface, with no living rock forming a substantial portion
>of the walls and roofs of such habitation.
So, are you asking for evidence that they did this? Or that they didn't do it?
I can show that Dwarves both lived above ground and below ground. On which
point would you like to argue with the author?
BTW -- you can have at least five days to formulate your argument. I'll be
offline.
>Give me contrary evidence Gandalf ever went south of the Harnen.
Show us where the book says he didn't.
>> ) What you presented was nonsense, and an attempt to derail the discussion.
>
>This is not your property. This not your classroom. You do not decide what
>I may or may not present.
Be a good boy for a change and stop attempting to derail the discussion.
>> ) was lost? No. If the text doesn't say it, then there is no point in
>
>The text doesn't say the balrog knew either. If the text doesn't say it,....
Ah, so that's what it comes down to. Does the text say the balrog knew all the
ways of Moria or not? Or are you going to argue that the chasm was not part of
Moria? You have five days to worm your way out of your trap....
>> ) Sounds more like his primary concern was keeping the Balrog away from
>> ) the Ring,
>
>Uh, right. After falling into the abyss, it is obvious that's Gandalf's
>primary concern, was "now how do I keep this Balrog from running out the
>Dimrill Gate and past Lorien toward Gondor."
Really? I didn't see that in the book. However, Gandalf could have just tried
to get away from the Balrog once he'd gotten back to Moria. Funny how he chased
the blasted thing all the way to the top of the mountain. Must have been
because he was so impressed that it could find its way around a mountain lair
about which it had absolutely no clue.
Gandalf probably was asking it to autograph his "Number 1 Lost Balrog Fan"
T-shirt, don't you think?
>> ) to resort to snide remarks and singularly extrapolative ruminations.
>
>Live with it, Disney boy.
Hey, a compliment. Thank you! :)
>There's an old saying: Live and let live. Leave me alone and I'll leave
>you alone.
As long as I let you start anything, you mean, right? Try abiding by that
philosophy yourself.
Personally, I don't mind if people "don't leave me alone" -- I just object to
net abuse (such as flaming and trolling).
>> ) a thing of terror that, flying from Thangorodrim, had lain hidden at
>> ) the foundations of the earth since the coming of the Host of the West:
>
>Yea. It ran away. Or flapped away. Doesn't say if he fought first. That's
>your interpretation.
No, that's in the book. You'd understand that if you would just bother to read
it for a change. Look at THE SILMARILLIOn.
>> ) Tolkien described him as a survivor, but I suppose you'll go on to argue
>
>Some people survive by running away without fighting.
Some people survive by ignoring reality, too.
>When the Balrog fell forward I really don't know if it lashed out in fear
>and desperation or if it really thought it could kill Gandalf. You
>apparently do, but since you only go by what is written, I wish I
>could have access to those unpublished stories.
Look, if your unpublished stories aren't satisfactory for you, don't waste any
time asking me to make some up for you. I prefer what Tolkien wrote.
>I sure everybody else would also like access to them.
I doubt that. There are plenty of people who, like you, make stuff up as they go
along. Most of them, however, aren't like you in other respects.
William
John R. Cooper wrote:
> Are you suggesting that this is a case of mass reader
> misinterpretation?
>
Cases of Mass Reader Misinterpretation (MRM) do however occur. A few examples,
of opinions held by many if not a majority of readers, but which are
nonetheless explicitly incorrect:
1) Gandalf was sent back after Zirak-Zigil by the Valar. (No, by Eru
Himself).
2) Boromir was a great hairy barbarian (No, he was a prince of Gondor, fair
and lordly).
3) The hobbits' room at the Prancing Pony was ransacked by the Black Riders
(No, by Bill Ferny & Co, at the Ringwraiths' behest)
4) The Elves of Lorien and Mirkwood were Avari (No, they were
(predominantly) Nandor.)
5) Glorfindel of Gondolin and G. of Rivendell were two different Elves (No,
they were the same person, returned from Mandos)
--
_________________________________________________
William Cloud Hicklin "And he named him craven,
soli...@gamewood.net and lord of slaves"
_________________________________________________
Michael Martinez
smj...@my-dejanews.com says...
>> Since I started this....
>> Micheal brings a great deal of learning and intelligence to the
>> discussion, I have no problem with his enjoyment is slightly different
>> than mine. I just don't need someone waiting in the shadows to pounce on
>> me.
>
You who presume to ignore the books and lecture us about what you imagine to be
in them speak to me of arrogance? That is incredibly laughable. I have cited
Tolkien and you have manufactured Tolkien -- which of us is the problem here?
And I note that in your message you tossed in the completely uncalled for "I
just don't need someone waiting in the shadows to pounce on me". ALL of the
pouncing has been from you.
>Give what you want to receive.
I gave fair, honest, and accurate citations. I did not resort to snide remarks
and insults in return as you did, until you did.
I give exactly what I want to receive -- you have never offered it, however.
Instead of provoking fights with your insinuations, try being a reasonable and
fair-minded contributing member of these news groups. You so far have failed to
do so. If you don't understand how to get along with people, I'll be glad to
point you to appropriate FAQs. And spare us the lectures about how you've been
around since the forgoil goil days. You're behavior doesn't indicate you know
how to conduct yourself in a Usenet discussion.
If you're going to go head-to-head with me, keep your insults to yourself, keep
your imaginary texts to yourself, and keep your pouting to yourself. Just talk
text. If you don't want to do that or are incapable of doing it, then don't
followup to me, don't mention me, and don't pretend I'm waiting to pounce on
you.
You don't rate that highly in my book, and it's extremely arrogant of you to
suggest you might ever.
Michael Martinez
>
>> I already tried.
>
>Well, you can only try, I s'pose.
<sigh>
Yeah. If only he really would try.
Oh well. He's not the first troll and won't be the last in these groups, I'm
sure.
Brian E. Clark
> 3) The hobbits' room at the Prancing Pony was ransacked by
> the Black Riders (No, by Bill Ferny & Co, at the Ringwraiths'
> behest)
Why do you say this? Where does the text talk about the
Ringwraith's request?
Michael Martinez
br...@real.address.in.sig says...
>
><soli...@gamewood.net> wrote:
>
>> 3) The hobbits' room at the Prancing Pony was ransacked by
>> the Black Riders (No, by Bill Ferny & Co, at the Ringwraiths'
>> behest)
>
>Why do you say this? Where does the text talk about the
>Ringwraith's request?
I believe that's stated in "The Hunt for the Ring" in UNFINISHED TALES. I'm at
work and cannot check the books, but if you stop to think about it, Tolkien
would have had a real problem on his hands if the Nazgul, who could sense the
Ring, had invaded the Inn and not been drawn to the correct room.
John R. Cooper
>Cases of Mass Reader Misinterpretation (MRM) do however occur. A few examples,
>of opinions held by many if not a majority of readers, but which are
>nonetheless explicitly incorrect:
>
>1) Gandalf was sent back after Zirak-Zigil by the Valar. (No, by Eru
>Himself).
>2) Boromir was a great hairy barbarian (No, he was a prince of Gondor, fair
>and lordly).
>3) The hobbits' room at the Prancing Pony was ransacked by the Black Riders
>(No, by Bill Ferny & Co, at the Ringwraiths' behest)
>4) The Elves of Lorien and Mirkwood were Avari (No, they were
>(predominantly) Nandor.)
>5) Glorfindel of Gondolin and G. of Rivendell were two different Elves (No,
>they were the same person, returned from Mandos)
I have one question and one comment about this.
Question: How have you determined that a "majority of readers" have
misinterpreted the texts as you have suggested?
First of all, you are assuming that "most readers" even know who the
Valar (or Eru) are. You are assuming that most readers recognize ANY
distinction between the elven sub-races. You are assuming that most readers
are even aware that there was a Glorfindel of Gondolin. And you are
assuming that the majority of readers have taken Bakshi's vision of Boromir
and the events at the Prancing Pony as gospel. I find all these assumptions
rather questionable.
Comment: While there is probably little credible evidence of the mass
reader misinterpretations you describe, I can (with enough time and effort)
track down countless paintings, drawings, and computer renderings of
"balrogs" that show them having wings. I further submit that most readers
are likely to envision wing-equipped balrogs strictly from reading the text
itself, whereas your list of "misinterpretations" require readers be
familiar with THE SILMARILLION and the endless debates that go on here.
In fact, I'm convinced that these so-called "opinions held by many if
not a majority of readers" are really nothing more than the opinions
expressed by a few dozen readers who have de-lurked long enough to post an
opinion here. I, however, never saw the past debates on whether balrogs
have wings (I'm very new here), and my notion of popular interpretation of
a "balrog" comes from numerous outside sources and media.
- John
maggot
>
> John R. Cooper wrote:
>
> > Are you suggesting that this is a case of mass reader
> > misinterpretation?
> >
>
> of opinions held by many if not a majority of readers, but which are
> nonetheless explicitly incorrect:
>
> 1) Gandalf was sent back after Zirak-Zigil by the Valar. (No, by Eru
> Himself).
> 2) Boromir was a great hairy barbarian (No, he was a prince of Gondor, fair
> and lordly).
> 3) The hobbits' room at the Prancing Pony was ransacked by the Black Riders
> (No, by Bill Ferny & Co, at the Ringwraiths' behest)
> 4) The Elves of Lorien and Mirkwood were Avari (No, they were
> (predominantly) Nandor.)
> 5) Glorfindel of Gondolin and G. of Rivendell were two different Elves (No,
> they were the same person, returned from Mandos)
You forgot to add: 6)Elves and Dwarves hate each other (No,
they just suffer from the general mistrust that exists in
the third age)
MBurg
maggot
> >of opinions held by many if not a majority of readers, but which are
> >nonetheless explicitly incorrect:
> >
> >1) Gandalf was sent back after Zirak-Zigil by the Valar. (No, by Eru
> >Himself).
> >2) Boromir was a great hairy barbarian (No, he was a prince of Gondor, fair
> >and lordly).
> >3) The hobbits' room at the Prancing Pony was ransacked by the Black Riders
> >(No, by Bill Ferny & Co, at the Ringwraiths' behest)
> >4) The Elves of Lorien and Mirkwood were Avari (No, they were
> >(predominantly) Nandor.)
> >5) Glorfindel of Gondolin and G. of Rivendell were two different Elves (No,
> >they were the same person, returned from Mandos)
>
>
> Question: How have you determined that a "majority of readers" have
> misinterpreted the texts as you have suggested?
>
> reader misinterpretations you describe, I can (with enough time and effort)
> track down countless paintings, drawings, and computer renderings of
> "balrogs" that show them having wings. I further submit that most readers
> are likely to envision wing-equipped balrogs strictly from reading the text
> itself, whereas your list of "misinterpretations" require readers be
> familiar with THE SILMARILLION and the endless debates that go on here.
> a "balrog" comes from numerous outside sources and media.
>
> - John
I dare say you are correct, but there have been many
examples of such popular misconceptions, if you take into
account the changes that occur in any legend or myth. Look
at all the widespread variations on the Arthurian legends
once canonized by Malory; One example being the idea that
Launcelot was a handsome man, based on glorified paintings
that were painted only shortly after the publication of La
Morte d'arthur. Augustus Caesar came down to us as a
healthy vigorous man, rather than a sickly, anemic cripple,
due to statues erected shortly after his death.
A more contemporary example would be Clash of the Titans,
which changed the Kraken into a bipedal monster, rather than
a giant squid, and most renditions I have seen in the past
several years of the Medusa have been of a horrific monster,
rather than a beautiful woman.
To put a more contemporary example forward, look at the
dreadful idea that most people have of Kipling's Jungle
Book, based on the disney movie. Look at Alice in
Wonderland, or the stories of Tarzan, and tell me how many
people rely strictly on the texts for their interpretation
of the stories.
When Bakshi on took LotR he drew the Hobbits as midgets,
short, stubby, and often misproportioned (of course he used
midget actors to play out the action and modeled the
animation after that). Thus we have seen scores of sketches
with the hobbits large feet and pudgy hands, though Tolkien
mentions from the start, the long nimble fingers of the
hobbits, and only makes reference to large feet with the
Proudfoot clan.
Personally I have always preffered the dramatic
implications of the balrog with wings, but I can not believe
that he definitely had wings, because aside from a simile,
there is no direct mention. He leapt, he climbed, he never
flew (though since everyone was shouting "Fly, fly," I can
believe tolkien was hesitant to bludgeon us again with the
word. I also believe that based on some fabulous artwork,
with a healthy dose of artistic license, a large majority of
a fellowship can come to accept an artistic interpretation
as their accepted canon.
MBurg
O'Neill Quigley
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote in article
<6sjndp$o...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> In article <01bdd65a$6e259780$85867dc2@default>, "O'Neill says...
> >
> >> I already tried.
> >
> >Well, you can only try, I s'pose.
>
> <sigh>
>
> Yeah. If only he really would try.
>
> Oh well. He's not the first troll and won't be the last in these groups,
I'm
> sure.
>
Michael Martinez
> Personally I have always preffered the dramatic
>implications of the balrog with wings, but I can not believe
>that he definitely had wings, because aside from a simile,
>there is no direct mention.
For what it's worth, the wings are mentioned twice in "The Bridge of
Khazad-dum". Once as a simile and once when they were "spread from wall to
wall". The flying Balrogs occur in a passage which was altered prior to
publication in THE SILMARILLION. We have no explanation of the alteration from
Christopher Tolkien.
>He leapt, he climbed, he never flew (though since everyone was shouting "Fly,
>fly," I can believe tolkien was hesitant to bludgeon us again with the
>word.
Flying through the Second Hall of Khazad-dum, which space was spanned by the
balrog's shadowy wings, had such movement required the use of its wings, would
have been rather difficult. And why should it flown at all, if there was indeed
room for flight?
For my part, I am not influenced by artwork. I prefer to go with the texts. :)
AGr3691541
>Personally I have always preffered the dramatic
>implications of the balrog with wings, but I can not believe
>that he definitely had wings, because aside from a simile,
>there is no direct mention. He leapt, he climbed, he never
>flew (though since everyone was shouting "Fly, fly," I can
>believe tolkien was hesitant to bludgeon us again with the
>word. I also believe that based on some fabulous artwork,
>with a healthy dose of artistic license, a large majority of
>a fellowship can come to accept an artistic interpretation
>as their accepted canon.
Didn't the balrogs in the SIlmarrilion have wings?
Lazy Line Painter Al
William
John R. Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 11:45:02 -0400, William <soli...@gamewood.net> wrote:
>
> >Cases of Mass Reader Misinterpretation (MRM) do however occur. A few examples,
> >of opinions held by many if not a majority of readers, but which are
> >nonetheless explicitly incorrect:
> >
> >1) Gandalf was sent back after Zirak-Zigil by the Valar. (No, by Eru
> >Himself).
> >2) Boromir was a great hairy barbarian (No, he was a prince of Gondor, fair
> >and lordly).
> >3) The hobbits' room at the Prancing Pony was ransacked by the Black Riders
> >(No, by Bill Ferny & Co, at the Ringwraiths' behest)
> >4) The Elves of Lorien and Mirkwood were Avari (No, they were
> >(predominantly) Nandor.)
> >5) Glorfindel of Gondolin and G. of Rivendell were two different Elves (No,
> >they were the same person, returned from Mandos)
>
> I have one question and one comment about this.
>
> Question: How have you determined that a "majority of readers" have
> misinterpreted the texts as you have suggested?
My phrase was "many if not a majority." I don't have statistics, obviously. And
the portion of readers who post on Usenet is not a statistically valid sample,
since it is nonrandom. But I can legitimately say "many", and I can suggest the
possibility of "most", since these misinterpretations appear on the NG's with
astonishing frequency.
>
>
> First of all, you are assuming that "most readers" even know who the
> Valar (or Eru) are. You are assuming that most readers recognize ANY
> distinction between the elven sub-races. You are assuming that most readers
> are even aware that there was a Glorfindel of Gondolin.
I am assuming that most posters to these NG's have read the Silmarillion. Or,
viewed differently, I can safely conclude that all those who have expressed an
opinion on these three topics have read the Silmarillion, since the issues would
not otherwise arise.
> And you are
> assuming that the majority of readers have taken Bakshi's vision of Boromir
> and the events at the Prancing Pony as gospel. I find all these assumptions
> rather questionable.
I surely hope that Bakshi's influence is not that widespread! Fortunately, only a
distinct minority seem to have seen that wretched cartoon. Bakshi is a victim,
not a cause, of MRM.
If you have read as many movie-bloody-casting threads on here as I have, you will
have seen the near-unanimous selection of Arnold-esque bruisers (or Tex Cobb, or
Hulk Hogan) set out for Boromir. This phenomenon seems to be receding slightly,
thanks to heavy preaching by me and others. As for the Black Riders: this is the
one fact that even now people seem to view with incredulity (understandably, since
Tolkien was very vague in the main narrative). I doubt many people here accept
Bakshi's version, with the BR's sorcerously transporting themselves through the
walls; Tolkien did mention the broken windows! But I imagine that if a poll were
taken, a very large proportion of respondents will say "but I always
thought......."
>
>
> Comment: While there is probably little credible evidence of the mass
> reader misinterpretations you describe, I can (with enough time and effort)
> track down countless paintings, drawings, and computer renderings of
> "balrogs" that show them having wings. I further submit that most readers
> are likely to envision wing-equipped balrogs strictly from reading the text
> itself, whereas your list of "misinterpretations" require readers be
> familiar with THE SILMARILLION and the endless debates that go on here.
MRM does not properly apply to Balrog Wings, the Age of the Mouth, Who Is Tom, or
any number of other favorite fights here, because there is no explicit answer to
any of them. They are matters of opinion, albeit often well-armed and red-fanged
opinion. Much as I believe that I am correct in denying Balrogs wings, I cannot
say that an artist is Absolutely Wrong in painting them alar. But I can say that
someone is Absolutely Wrong in asserting two different Glorfindels.
Bob Bayse
William wrote:
> 5) Glorfindel of Gondolin and G. of Rivendell were two different Elves (No,
> they were the same person, returned from Mandos)
Whoa, nelly! I've really missed something with this one. I've never seen *any*
indication of this, nor had reason to suspect it. I love Glorfindel (of
Rivendell)
and would love to believe he had taken out a balrog single-handedly.
I immediately wondered, of course, when I saw the name in the Silmarillion,
if it were the same guy, and was alert (so I thought) for a connection. But
Glorfindel (first age) died in the fight; why would he be sent back? It would
be unprecedented except for Beren and Luthien. (If they were to send elves
back for valor, we'd have a whole bunch of returns, starting with Fingolfin.)
Please tell me the reference; I'd love to read it.
Joe Bader
newsgroup, or any others for that matter, how to conduct oneself in
proper Usenet discussion.
And if, as you say: "I give exactly what I want to receive" is true,
are the gentle readers of this group to take this to mean that they may
cancel your posts at whim?
Just wondering . . .
In message <6sjnb8$g...@drn.newsguy.com> - Michael Martinez
<Mic...@xenite.org> writes:
<<snip>>
:>I give exactly what I want to receive --
:>you have never offered it, however.
:>Instead of provoking fights with your
:>insinuations, try being a reasonable and
:>fair-minded contributing member of
:>these news groups. You so far have failed to
:>do so. If you don't understand how
:>to get along with people, I'll be glad to
:>point you to appropriate FAQs. And
:>spare us the lectures about how you've been
:>around since the forgoil goil days.
:>You're behavior doesn't indicate you know
:>how to conduct yourself in a Usenet discussion.
<<snip>>
Joe Bader
j...@primary.net
!**?#!#$
> ) >> )
> ) >> ) Unless they've learned to float without flapping their wings,
then given
> ) >Why wouldn't they flap their wings?
> )
> ) Because there ain't no room. If we're going to talk about birds in a balrog
You're assuming they permitted themselves to fall far enough to be stuck.
I'm not accepting your assumption. Live with it. Despite what you think,
this is not a moderated group, nor is it your balliwick: you can't expect
others to accept your assumption.
> ) Fine. We'll INTERPRET the passage this way, with your approval, of course:
I'm saving this.
Expect to see it thrown back in your face the next time you admonish
others not to make interpretation.
> ) and therefore went blindly to its doom as a pure matter of plot device.
You shouldn't've ignored all the blither about evolution. Blind chance can
be successful.
> ) The book says he was FOUND UNDER MORIA. How many times are you going
to insist
> ) that Tolkien is wrong on a point? And since I didn't offer any routes
after he
> ) was awakened, what exactly is "just my interpretation"?
If a search&rescue team finds a person in a forest and brings them out,
does that mean that person knows their away around the forest? You stated
the Balrog knew all the ways below Moria. That's interpretation.
> ) >This is not your property. This not your classroom. You do not decide what
> ) >I may or may not present.
> )
> ) Be a good boy for a change and stop attempting to derail the discussion.
That, child, is the discussion. As long as you wait in the shadows to
pounce on anything I write, I will be waiting for you.
That is the totality of my side of the discussion.
> ) Ah, so that's what it comes down to. Does the text say the balrog
knew all the
> ) ways of Moria or not? Or are you going to argue that the chasm was
not part
I have always been willing to accept other people's interpretation. That,
for me, is the primary purpose of being here, to find new ways to look at
the stories. Not to pounce on other people.
I've made an exception for you.
> ) >> ) Sounds more like his primary concern was keeping the Balrog away from
> ) >> ) the Ring,
> )
> ) Really? I didn't see that in the book. However, Gandalf could have just
Gotcha again. You didn't see that in the book, so how can you be sure it
was his primary concern. More unsupported interpretation.
I guess Micheal's interpretations are unquestionable. Too bad you don't
have the common courtesy to let others express their interpretation.
> ) As long as I let you start anything, you mean, right? Try abiding by that
> ) philosophy yourself.
Micheal, for many years, I have.
> ) it for a change. Look at THE SILMARILLIOn.
Been there, done that. Which battle did this Balrog fight in before Moria?
We know it escaped the ruin. Did it try to prevent the ruin. Go ahead,
show me where it says this specific Balrog fought against the Host of
Valinor.
> ) Look, if your unpublished stories aren't satisfactory for you, don't
waste any
> ) time asking me to make some up for you. I prefer what Tolkien wrote.
Yeah, well you seem to see things he wrote nobody can see.
!**?#!#$
> ) just don't need someone waiting in the shadows to pounce on me". ALL of the
> ) pouncing has been from you.
Go back to deja-news, disney boy. You jumped out with a silly semantic
quibble that dwarves camped aboveground that was proof that they did not
_live_ underground. I told you to leave me alone. You didn't. Instead you
make snide remarks.
Killfile if you want. Like I give a damn.
> ) I gave fair, honest, and accurate citations. I did not resort to snide
Crap. You dress up your interpretation with a few quotes and then expect
everybody else to suck up to you.
> ) I give exactly what I want to receive -- you have never offered it,
however.
> ) Instead of provoking fights with your insinuations, try being a
reasonable and
> ) fair-minded contributing member of these news groups. You so far have
failed to
Do you remember smr...@netcom.com? I've watch your crap for many years and
ignored it because you ignored me. Go back to ignoring me and I will go
back to ignoring you. Like I keep telling you, your choice.
And look around. With whom am I provoking fights except you? I realise you
like to think of yourself as the totality of the newsgroup, but that ain't
so.
Live with it, disney boy.
> ) If you're going to go head-to-head with me, keep your insults to yourself,
Child, I'm getting closer to death than birth. I'm old enough to call crap
crap. I don't need my mother's permission.
!**?#!#$
> ) >
> ) >Well, you can only try, I s'pose.
> )
> ) <sigh>
> )
> ) Yeah. If only he really would try.
> )
> ) Oh well. He's not the first troll and won't be the last in these
groups, I'm
> ) sure.
Sigh, if only you knew what a troll was, child.
Let me repeat it one more time: ignore me and I'll ignore you. Harping
about trapdoors because you don't know what a programmer means by trapdoor
is not ignoring me.
If I'm adding nothing to the discussion, why even bother responding? It's
not your personal newsgroup. If you want that, why not have a call for
discussion and vote for rec.arts.books.tolkien.micheals.group.moderated.
I'm sure it will be full of lively discussions.
Mark Wells
>Didn't the balrogs in the SIlmarrilion have wings?
The Silmarillion says the Balrogs were Ainur, which should mean that
they could assume just about any shape at will. Tolkien wrote
elsewhere that the Balrogs became, in a sense, dependent on their
bodies and lost the ability to change their form. Of course, he said
the same thing about Sauron, who changes bodies as often as most
people change clothes, so that whole statement is suspect.
------------------------------------------------
"Parents give up their rights when they
drop the children off at public school."
-- Melinda Harmon, Spineless Federal Judge, 1996
Mark Wells -- ma...@pc-intouch.com
Replies by email are welcome
Barrie Cameron
>
> On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 20:30:22 -0700, Barrie Cameron <bar...@actrix.gen.nz>
> wrote:
>
> >Then when it stepped onto the bridge :
> >"...the darkness grew..." "...and suddenly it drew itself up to a great
> >height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall..." for me Tolkien
> >is speaking figuratively, the "wings" being the Balrogs power of
> >darkness that it wielded like a weapon and extends to a maximum to
> >threaten its foe.
> >
> >If you have evidence, perhaps from elsewhere in Tolkien's writings, that
> >this interpretation is in error and that they were in fact wings, please
> >let me know.
>
> In the darkness of the chamber, the Balrog was, at first, more shadow
> than details, including its wings, and that is what Tolkien was trying to
> convey in the initial description. As it lept forward and "presented"
> itself in all its terrifying glory, the details emerged, and the shadows
> were revealed to be wings.
>
> It seems more sensible to me (Occam's Razor here) that it had wings and
> not some kind of Darkness Control power. Furthermore, every artistic
> interpretation of a Balrog I've ever seen gives it wings. Every Balrog
> clone I've ever seen (in RPGs for instance) has wings (e.g., the AD&D Balor
> demon). Are you suggesting that this is a case of mass reader
> misinterpretation?
>
> - John
Why not?
If you dip into "The Silmarillion" you will find several references to
Balrogs. None of them mention wings, though the power of darkness is
referenced.
Further more, in one battle the Balrogs are described as fighting in
support or along side dragons which a not described to have wings nor to
attack from the sky but to fight on the ground.
In a later battle however, "The Great Battle" or "War of Wrath", after
his hosts were overthrown, Morgoth "loosed upon his foes the last
desperate assault that he had prepared, and out of the pits of Angband
there issued the winged dragons, that had not before been seen; and so
sudden and ruinous was the onset of that dreadful fleet that the host of
the Valar was driven back, for the coming of the dragons was with great
thunder, and lightning, and a tempest of fire".(page 252 of T.S. "Of The
Voyage of Earendil").
Again, if you can refer me to solid evidence in Tolkien's writings re
wings, I will willingly review my opinion, but to date it appears to me
that Balrogs moved and fought only on the ground and, while being
cloaked in darkness and breathers of fire, they were not winged, just as
the earlier dragons were not winged.
Cheers.
--
Barrie I. CAMERON
Electrical Engineer
<bar...@actrix.gen.nz>
AGr3691541
Wells) writes:
>On 02 Sep 1998 20:21:14 GMT, agr36...@aol.com (AGr3691541) wrote:
>
>>Didn't the balrogs in the SIlmarrilion have wings?
>
>The Silmarillion says the Balrogs were Ainur, which should mean that
>they could assume just about any shape at will. Tolkien wrote
>elsewhere that the Balrogs became, in a sense, dependent on their
>bodies and lost the ability to change their form. Of course, he said
>the same thing about Sauron, who changes bodies as often as most
>people change clothes, so that whole statement is suspect.
Actually, that seems kind of consistent to me. Central to evil in Tolkiens
mythology is the promotion of self and materialism, at the cost of the
individual's eternal identity. As Sauron and the Balrogs became more evil and
corrput they became more wedded to this World and their bodies, so that when
they died, they became non-existent.
Lazy Line Painter Al
Brian E. Clark
[...]
> Central to evil in Tolkiens mythology is the promotion
> of self and materialism, at the cost of the individual's
> eternal identity.
Materialism? In what sense?
Morgoth and Sauron both promoted "self," but it did not cost them
their eternal identities.
> As Sauron and the Balrogs became more evil and
> corrput they became more wedded to this World and
> their bodies, so that when they died, they became
> non-existent.
I don't know the fate of Balrogs. Sauron, however, did not die,
he merely became too powerless to act.
Both Sauron and Morgoth became chained to their bodies not
(directly) because they promoted themselves but
because they transferred significant portions of their being
outside themselves.
John R. Cooper
I invite you to read the Tolkien FAQ entry on this matter at:
http://www.daimi.aau.dk/~bouvin/tolkien/sameglorfindel.html and decide for
yourself! :)
- John
William
Mark Wells wrote:
> On 02 Sep 1998 20:21:14 GMT, agr36...@aol.com (AGr3691541) wrote:
>
> >Didn't the balrogs in the SIlmarrilion have wings?
>
> The Silmarillion says the Balrogs were Ainur, which should mean that
> they could assume just about any shape at will. Tolkien wrote
> elsewhere that the Balrogs became, in a sense, dependent on their
> bodies and lost the ability to change their form. Of course, he said
> the same thing about Sauron, who changes bodies as often as most
> people change clothes, so that whole statement is suspect.
>
Not really. Sauron seems to be Protean indeed when fighting Huan- but
that is early (both in history and in textual composition). Each time
Sauron was debodied, it took him longer to rebuild, and he had less and
less control over his appearance. After the Change of the World he could
no longer appear fair.
In the (relatively late) essay on telepathy, published in Vinya Tengwar,
Tolkien explicitly states that Morgoth's Maiarin servants lost the
ability to change form, becoming bound to the bodies they had taken,
almost as Incarnates are.
maggot
>
> In article <35ED9378...@fatnet.net>, maggot says...
> > Personally I have always preffered the dramatic
> >implications of the balrog with wings, but I can not believe
> >that he definitely had wings, because aside from a simile,
> >there is no direct mention.
>
> Khazad-dum". Once as a simile and once when they were "spread from wall to
> wall". The flying Balrogs occur in a passage which was altered prior to
> publication in THE SILMARILLION. We have no explanation of the alteration from
> Christopher Tolkien.
>
> >fly," I can believe tolkien was hesitant to bludgeon us again with the
> >word.
>
> balrog's shadowy wings, had such movement required the use of its wings, would
> have been rather difficult. And why should it flown at all, if there was indeed
> room for flight?
In reference to the chamber in question:
"Great shadows sprang up and fled, and for a second they saw
a vast roof far above their heads... Before them and on
either side stretched a huge empty hall."
This was the chamber that the party slept in going through
Moria. Later it is described as, "The great cavernous
hall." When they arrive in the chamber with the bridge,
this description is given:
"Before them was another cavernous hall. It was loftier and
far longer than the one in which they had slept. They were
near its Eastern end; Westward it ran away into darkness.
Down the center stalked a double line of towering
pillars... Right across the floor, close to the feet of two
huge pillars a great fissure had opened..."
Now I am keen to think that the wings that Tolkien gives
reference too in the possesive sense is the drape of
darkness that the balrog carries with him, rather than
actual wings. In such a vast chamber there seems to be
ample room to fly in, and certainly no reason to assume that
the balrog had no room in which to fly. Though that may
have been the case, why didn't his vast bulk get hung up on
the pillars that ran across the room, when he went to climb
on the bridge. Perhaps he retracted his wings, for he would
have had to if he had followed the felloship party down the
same path. It wasn't until they were on the bridge that
Tolkien makes any possesive reference to wings, yet they
seem to expand beyond logic to be of so vast a proportion
that they can span a huge cavernous hall. I also see a
particularly curious reference that Gandalf stood there,
"glimmering in the gloom." after the balrog had spread its
wings (of darkness?) from wall to wall. JRR makes a strong
point of letting us know that Gandalf could be seen in spite
of these "wings" which would otherwise have only blocked the
view of the orcs at the Eastern end:
"its wings were spread from wall to wall; but still Gandalf
could be seen, glimmering in the gloom;"
That certainly leaves some room for interpretation. Tolkien
makes use of wings as a literary decvice, in this passage,
to describe darkness and to punctuate the grat odds that
Gandalf faces here in this battle. He could easily have
described the balrog as having great wings on its shoulders,
and of so great a scale that most scarcely came up to its
knee, but no such description was made. The beast becomes
all the more terrifying when we see it's terror in such
terms, and Tolkien knew this, and exploited it...
MBurg
Jouni Karhu
>> ) >> ) >Would a bird fall into crevice?
>> ) >> )
>> ) >> ) Unless they've learned to float without flapping their wings,
>then given
>> ) >Why wouldn't they flap their wings?
>> )
>> ) Because there ain't no room. If we're going to talk about birds in a balrog
>
>You're assuming they permitted themselves to fall far enough to be stuck.
>I'm not accepting your assumption. Live with it. Despite what you think,
>this is not a moderated group, nor is it your balliwick: you can't expect
>others to accept your assumption.
Think not of sparrows when you think of flying; think of swans, or
even bigger birds yet. And even those bigger birds have hollow bones,
which the balrogs certainly do not have. To get enough air under its
wings, the balrog would most probably leap up, much like the bigger
birds do to get airborne. When the bridge collapsed under its feet
(quite unexpectedly), the balrog could not immediately produce enough
lift to hold its position. And then it was too late. The crevice was
too narrow for it to start gliding (its wings reached from one end of
the hall to the other), and something as massive as a balrog can not
hover like a hummingbird. So it fell, knowing that it will take it a
while to get back up, so it used its whip to take Gandalf with it.
The balrog had too big a wingspan to spiral in the crevice. Thus, it
could not fly up. The most it could do was probably slow the fall a
little by using its wings as a parachute.
Nothing to do with 'permitting' anything. Just simple physics.
--
'I have something to say! | 'The Immoral Immortal' \o JJ Karhu
It is better to burn out, | -=========================OxxxxxxxxxxxO
than to fade away!' | kur...@modeemi.cs.tut.fi /o
Mike Kew
>
>Think not of sparrows when you think of flying; think of swans, or
>even bigger birds yet. And even those bigger birds have hollow bones,
>which the balrogs certainly do not have.
Umm - you seem very certain of this... I don't recall anyone doing
a post-mortem on a Balrog?
>The balrog had too big a wingspan to spiral in the crevice. Thus, it
>could not fly up. The most it could do was probably slow the fall a
>little by using its wings as a parachute.
This seems reasonable to me.
--
Mike Kew
"Why don't we get together and charge through?"
(Please don't attribute the sig unless replying to the post - thanks.)
Megan Westerfield
> > ) >> ) Try reading the books more and looking for fights less, okay?
> > ) >Yes. Please do.
> > ) In case it wasn't clear the first time, that request was intended solely for
> > ) you, as you appear to be lecturing us on Tolkien without bothering to
> consult
> > ) the texts.
> And in case it was clear to you, why don't you look for fights less? Or do
> you not willing to finish what you start?
how 'bout we all just agree to back off and start with a new attitude?
just put down the baseball bats and act like adults? I know that with
a group of highly intelligent ppl there is going to be conflict. But
we do not have to succumb to our tempers.
*Rabbyt the Elf-Queen
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>spoon<><><><><><><><><>
"Oh nobly born, let not thy mind be distracted. "
_The_Tibetan_Book_of_the_Dead_
Jouni Karhu
>On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Jouni Karhu <kur...@modeemi.cs.tut.fi> wrote
>>
>>Think not of sparrows when you think of flying; think of swans, or
>>even bigger birds yet. And even those bigger birds have hollow bones,
>>which the balrogs certainly do not have.
>
>Umm - you seem very certain of this... I don't recall anyone doing
>a post-mortem on a Balrog?
Point taken. :) One should never make assertations even when the
matter seems 'certain' to oneself :)
But I still think it pretty damn unlikely . . .
Tenderfoot
>how 'bout we all just agree to back off and start with a new attitude?
>just put down the baseball bats and act like adults? I know that with
>a group of highly intelligent ppl there is going to be conflict. But
>we do not have to succumb to our tempers.
Hear the Queen!
Tenderfoot
Graham Lockwood
>On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Jouni Karhu <kur...@modeemi.cs.tut.fi> wrote
>>
>>Think not of sparrows when you think of flying; think of swans, or
>>even bigger birds yet. And even those bigger birds have hollow bones,
>>which the balrogs certainly do not have.
>
>Umm - you seem very certain of this... I don't recall anyone doing
>a post-mortem on a Balrog?
As I've said elsewhere, Tolkien wasn't big on scientific accuracy. There
has never been anything on earth with hollow bones that was anything like
the size of a balrog. As animals get bigger, their mass increases four
times as fast as their length so bones have to get really big and strong.
All of the really big birds, both extinct and extant, were flightless and
all of the flightless birds had solid bones. From a biological standpoint,
nothing the size of a balrog could possibly fly in Earth's gravity. Of
course, neither can dragons but that's never stopped anybody. It's that
whole "Secondary Belief" thing :-)
||// // - ------===**O**===------- - || //
|// // Graham Lockwood ||//
(/ // gsl...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu |//
||// (/)
|// Quantum Mechanics //|
(/ The dreams stuff is made of //||
|| - -------====**O**====------- - // ||
!**?#!#$
> ) whole "Secondary Belief" thing :-)
Dragons were gasbags. They spewed acid on calcium carbonate and collected
the resulting hydrogen in their bodies until they reached neutral
bouyance. Then small wing muscles would be enough to change altitude and
maneuver. They burped hydrogen and hydrochloric acid which ignited on
contact with oxygen.
It's almost as if you don't believe dragons really existed.....
Jay Random
>
> > ) course, neither can dragons but that's never stopped anybody. It's that
> > ) whole "Secondary Belief" thing :-)
>
> Dragons were gasbags. They spewed acid on calcium carbonate and collected
> the resulting hydrogen in their bodies until they reached neutral
> bouyance. Then small wing muscles would be enough to change altitude and
> maneuver. They burped hydrogen and hydrochloric acid which ignited on
> contact with oxygen.
>
> It's almost as if you don't believe dragons really existed.....
I recall an enormously entertaining article on the physiology of dragons
in _Scientific American_. (No, I can't recall whether it was an April
issue.) The upshot: dragons may just be physically possible, but it's
difficult to see the survival value of evolving into a flying bomb.
Ognjen Mlinar
Tenderfoot wrote:
Right on!! Hail to the Queen! I'll cancel already written posting on this
matter as a token of my good will!!
>
>
> Tenderfoot
--
'Organ transplants are best left to the professionals'
-Bart Simpson's blackboard quotation-
Mike Kew
>!**?#!#$ wrote:
>>
>> Dragons were gasbags. They spewed acid on calcium carbonate and collected
>> the resulting hydrogen in their bodies until they reached neutral
>> bouyance. Then small wing muscles would be enough to change altitude and
>> maneuver. They burped hydrogen and hydrochloric acid which ignited on
>> contact with oxygen.
>>
>> It's almost as if you don't believe dragons really existed.....
>
>I recall an enormously entertaining article on the physiology of dragons
>in _Scientific American_. (No, I can't recall whether it was an April
>issue.) The upshot: dragons may just be physically possible, but it's
>difficult to see the survival value of evolving into a flying bomb.
Interesting - that's precisely how Terry Pratchett's dragons have
been working for several years now. As you say, they're
evolutionarily a bit tricky, 'cos they tend to explode when they
get angry (or sneeze, or eat something ill-advised, or...). He
also mentions how the BIG dragons fly using thermals from the
fires they start on the ground.
--
Mike Kew
"I marvel to see one here now in the midst of sorrow and war."
Graham Lockwood
!**?#!#$ wrote in message ...
>> ) course, neither can dragons but that's never stopped anybody. It's
that
>> ) whole "Secondary Belief" thing :-)
>
>the resulting hydrogen in their bodies until they reached neutral
>bouyance. Then small wing muscles would be enough to change altitude and
>maneuver. They burped hydrogen and hydrochloric acid which ignited on
>contact with oxygen.
I seem to recall that being the explanation in "Flight of Dragons", a very
cool movie, but that still wouldn't explain it. If you've ever seen a blimp
(even an old blimp that used hydrogen), it takes a very big "gasbag" to
support a puny little gondola so unless you want to say that dragon's had
entire hollow bodies filled with hydrogen, they wouldn't be able to float.
>It's almost as if you don't believe dragons really existed.....
Sure I do... when I'm reading an author who has successfully created
secondary belief.
O. Sharp
"Balrogs-had-or-didn't-have-wings" thing several times, yet I've never
really seen this point addressed, I'll throw it out for the usual rounds
of discussion, argument and great lamentation. :)
Some have opined that Balrogs had wings, and could fly; the explanantion
for the Khazad-dum Balrog not taking wing in its battle with Gandalf
generally opines that there wasn't enough room in the Great Hall for it
to fully take wing and fly. But when it was fleeing from Gandalf a while
later, it eventually ends up at the peak of Zirak-zigil... where there is
presumably _plenty_ of room to fly... and yet instead of flapping its
hypothetical "wings" and flying away, it "fell from the high place and
broke the mountain-side where he smote it in his ruin" (_TT_ p. 106
hardback).
(This would be a good time that Glorfindel's First Age Balrog also "fell
backwards from the rock, and falling clutched Glorfindel's yellow locks
beneath his cap, and those twain fell into the abyss" (_BoLT II_, p. 194
hb). Though the circumstances were indeed somewhat different, it might be
worth suggesting that this account, written around 1916-17, might have
served as an early inspiration or model for Gandalf's later battle?...
Opinions? Thoughts?)
So, Pro-Wingers: any thoughts on the matter of the Plummeting Balrog? :)
...I myself have many problems with the "Balrogs-had-wings" school of
thought, but I do not post this with thoughts of swaying the opposition
or "winning" the "argument"; I am merely interested, and insatiably
curious. :) :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
o...@netcom.com Curiosity, they say, killed the cat. But I myself
have dogs. :)
!**?#!#$
> ) been working for several years now. As you say, they're
Actually, I got my information from a book called Dragons. It came out at
about the same time as Gnomes, Fairies, and Giants.
Graham Lockwood
"The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the
darkness grew. It stepped forward on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew
itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall;
but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed small,
and altogether alone: grey and bent, like a wizened tree before the onset of
a storm." (FotR, p. 345 in my book)
Jonathan Kent
: On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 22:16:40 +0200, "Josep" <p...@megaiweb.com> wrote:
: >
: >D@vide Carboni escribió en mensaje
: ><6rv54i$aa9$2...@server-b.cs.interbusiness.it>...
: >>if Balrogs have wings why did Moria Balrog fall down when
: >>Gandalf broke the bridge ??
: >>
: >IIRC, Tolkien states that the darkness that surrounded the Balrog spread
: >"like two wings" -sorry, I don't have my books available. This is not the
: >same as saiying that the Balrog HAD wings. Besides, wings are not
: >necessarily strictly related to flight. Take penguins or kiwis, for
: >instance.
: Read a little further (past the initial description of the Balrog) and
: you'll see that it spreads its wings to fill the entire chamber before
: leaping onto the bridge. The text itself states quite clearly that the
: Balrog had wings.
In the future 50 or so responses I'm sure someone must mention this
at least once, but just incase:
What if it was a _laiden_ Balrog? I mean, he could have gripped the
Wizard by the husk.
Jonathan
: - John
--
"Yeah, that John Denver's full of shit."
Loyd Christmas
O. Sharp
: > [snippp] But when it was fleeing from Gandalf a while
: >later, it eventually ends up at the peak of Zirak-zigil... where there is
: >presumably _plenty_ of room to fly... and yet instead of flapping its
: >hypothetical "wings" and flying away, it "fell from the high place and
: >broke the mountain-side where he smote it in his ruin" (_TT_ p. 106
: >hardback).
: > [snippp]
: >So, Pro-Wingers: any thoughts on the matter of the Plummeting Balrog? :)
: >
: >...I myself have many problems with the "Balrogs-had-wings" school of
: >thought, but I do not post this with thoughts of swaying the opposition
: >or "winning" the "argument"; I am merely interested, and insatiably
: >curious. :) :)
: "The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the
: darkness grew. It stepped forward on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew
: itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall;
: but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed small,
: and altogether alone: grey and bent, like a wizened tree before the onset of
: a storm." (FotR, p. 345 in my book)
Uhmmm... yes, I've read that, and also the "shadow about it reached out
like two vast wings" quote on the previous page, but - forgive me - they
don't make it clear whether the wings are physical or metaphorical, and
also don't really address my question - that of why the Balrog, fleeing
Gandalf, didn't take wing at the peak of Zirak-zigil.
I don't expect a concrete answer; if there were one, I'm sure it would
have been cited many years earlier. :) I _am_, however, interested in
speculation. Any thoughts or theories which sound plausible?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
o...@netcom.com ...Or, indeed, _im_plausible. I need to add some
new Tolkien Crackpot Theories to the web-site
now and then, you know. :)
!**?#!#$
> ) at least once, but just incase:
> ) What if it was a _laiden_ Balrog? I mean, he could have gripped the
> ) Wizard by the husk.
While it is true a European Balrog could not have carried a wizard, an
African Balrog could have.
!**?#!#$
The answer is remarkable simple, and it will allow us to tie together a
few other threads.
First to review the quotes: "It was like a great shadow..." Not "it was"
but "it was like".
"And its wings were spread from wall to wall..."
"The sun shone fiercely there..." but very quickly "...A great smoke rose
about us, vapour and steam. Ice fell like rain." So the incident solar
radiation was quickly masked before any signficant warming could occur;
and the ambient temperature was at or below freezing.
From the Silmarillion, "...their hearts were of fire, but they were
cloaked in darkness..."
And in not altogether irrelevant observation from 2001, Floyd observes
that after sunrise, his shadow is cannot be seen on the TMA-1, and he
calculate the monolith is absorbing vast amounts of energy. I've mislaid
my copy, and I don't remember the precise calculation, but it is
sufficient, apparently, to power an interstellar radio burst.
Finally, as others have pointed out, it is aerodynamickally impossible for
a dragon to fly as birds do, but instead they must have been enormous
gasbags. A similar calculation shows that it is unlikely Balrogs could fly
as birds do.
But what about a hot air balloon?
An enormous, shadowy black membrane could efficiently absorb all incident
radiation and ambient warming and use that to heat enough air within a sac
to become buoyant.
I propose the sequence of events,
(1) The Balrog enters the Chamber of Records. In order to fit within the
smaller chamber, it first deflates its airsac.
(2) At the Second Hall, its mane is ignited, the hot exhaust gasses
collect into the airsac as shadowy membrane inflates (enlarges).
(3) Bridge collapses before it has acheived buoyancy. It falls instead of
rising.
(4) "His fire was quenched." In under-Moria, the Balrog cannot generate
enough heat, nor is there any incident radiation. The Balrog is unable to
inflate its airsacs.
(5) Once up in Moria again, buoyancy would be useful, but the passageway
is too restricted.
(6) On Zirakzigil, the Balrog springs out in flame and bright sunlight.
Undoubtably it hopes to quickly achieve flight. However the air is so cold
it takes longer than expected to heat up. Then in the conflict, the
sunlight is lost. And ice and water fall upon it, cooling it and trapped
air further. The Balrog hopes to take flight, but fails.
Did Gandalf really throw down his foe? He was, after all, in the form of
an old man. Perhaps it was failed take-off attempt, or even Moria's
version of the Hindenburg disaster. As Gandalf says, nobody else saw the
battle. Was Gandalf stretching the truth in order to impress his allies?
Jouni Karhu
>So, Pro-Wingers: any thoughts on the matter of the Plummeting Balrog? :)
>
>...I myself have many problems with the "Balrogs-had-wings" school of
>thought, but I do not post this with thoughts of swaying the opposition
>or "winning" the "argument"; I am merely interested, and insatiably
>curious. :) :)
I guess there's the third possibility: that Balrogs have wings, but
are not able to fly . . . :) Sort of like a huge penguin. No. Not a
good comparison. Or, come to think of it . . .
AGr3691541
Karhu) writes:
>o...@netcom.com (O. Sharp) wrote:
>>So, Pro-Wingers: any thoughts on the matter of the Plummeting Balrog? :)
>>
>>...I myself have many problems with the "Balrogs-had-wings" school of
>>thought, but I do not post this with thoughts of swaying the opposition
>>or "winning" the "argument"; I am merely interested, and insatiably
>>curious. :) :)
>
>I guess there's the third possibility: that Balrogs have wings, but
>are not able to fly . . . :) Sort of like a huge penguin. No. Not a
>good comparison. Or, come to think of it . . .
>
However, after days fighting Gandalf to the roots of the Earth and beyond, it's
quite likely that his Wings didn't work any more.
Lazy Line Painter Al
Paganini <Nathan E. Banks>
SPIRITS trapped in homemade bodies, powerd by darkness and the evil Flame of
Udun. I don't think it matters whether their bodies were phisically capable
of flying. The same with dragons. BTW, did I see it suggested below that
Dragons were black? I always thought they were red. (Smaug was, anyway)
I'm fairly sure that Tolkien didn't sit down with a scientific textbook and
fugure all this out. He wanted to tell a good story, which he does supremely
well. I think th eBalrog passage is one of the scariest in the books. The
great Gandalf almost overcome by some unknown power! What's going to happen
to the company? WHOOOoooOOOoo!
--
Annon
Et Annonello, nólë.
!**?#!#$ wrote in message ...
Graham Lockwood
>I think you're getting a little overly scientific, here. Balrogs were
>SPIRITS trapped in homemade bodies, powerd by darkness and the evil Flame
of
>Udun. I don't think it matters whether their bodies were phisically capable
>of flying. The same with dragons. BTW, did I see it suggested below that
>Dragons were black? I always thought they were red. (Smaug was, anyway)
I think they were different colors. The most powerfull dragon ever was
Ancalagon the Black.
BTW, I found a reference in the Silmarillion (p. 252 in my book) about when
the Valar came down on Morgoth at the end of the First Age. It said that
"Earendil slew Ancalgon the Black, the mightiest of the dragon-host, and
cast him from the sky; and he fell upon the towers of Thangorodrim, and they
were broken in his ruin." Well, here's an example of someone "casting from
the sky" something that could obviously fly. If Earendil could cast down a
flying dragon, why couldn't Gandalf cast down a flying Balrog?
O. Sharp
: Did Gandalf really throw down his foe? He was, after all, in the form of
: an old man. Perhaps it was failed take-off attempt, or even Moria's
: version of the Hindenburg disaster.
So it was... the Hindenbalrog? :) :) :)
: As Gandalf says, nobody else saw the
: battle. Was Gandalf stretching the truth in order to impress his allies?
The old cliche' line "And after we kill him, we can make up any story we
want" comes leaping to mind. :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
o...@netcom.com "And after the War was over, the West defeated and the
Ring recovered, the mind of Sauron was free to turn to other
matters. Who had killed the Balrog? There were no witnesses,
the murder scene was broken and the evidence smashed, and
the only one who would talk about it was some crazed old
man who claimed _he_ did it. I knew the Balrog, and I
knew some old codger wasn't a match for him. He also said he
had died and come back to life, which certainly didn't add
credence to his story. So there I was: Nick Archer, my
business in Minas Tirith a shambles, hired on by Sauron. I
didn't like him, but I didn't like a lot of my clients,
and anyway a guy's gotta have money for booze..."
-from _The Valarauka's Long Sleep_ by Raymond Chandler
!**?#!#$
> ) the murder scene was broken and the evidence smashed, and
> ) the only one who would talk about it was some crazed old
> ) man who claimed _he_ did it. I knew the Balrog, and I
> ) knew some old codger wasn't a match for him. He also said he
Yeah, he was probably full of hot air.
jessie shelton
<snip>
> -from _The Valarauka's Long Sleep_ by Raymond Chandler
oh, lord, that was hilarious. (:
And next Nick Archer can go turn his attention to the other murder
mystery pressing on our minds: Who killed the Nazgul Captain? Was it
the mysterious Halfling, or the woman disguised as a warrior? And
there's this little grassy knoll over here...
jessie
(it was Eowyn. :P )
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
jessie shelton (one side of moebius)
shelton(AT)princeton.edu http://www.princeton.edu/~shelton
"Tick, clong, tick, clong, tick, clong, went the night."
- King Clode, _The White Deer_, Thurber
---------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Lockwood
O. Sharp wrote in message ...
>: "The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the
>: darkness grew. It stepped forward on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew
>: itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall;
>: but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed
small,
>: and altogether alone: grey and bent, like a wizened tree before the onset
of
>: a storm." (FotR, p. 345 in my book)
>
>Uhmmm... yes, I've read that, and also the "shadow about it reached out
>like two vast wings" quote on the previous page, but - forgive me - they
>don't make it clear whether the wings are physical or metaphorical, and
>also don't really address my question - that of why the Balrog, fleeing
>
>have been cited many years earlier. :) I _am_, however, interested in
>speculation. Any thoughts or theories which sound plausible?
I don't buy the "shadow about it reached out like two vast wings" idea: it's
a simile describing its shadow, not its wings. But the quote I put seems
pretty concrete to me. If you don't like then there's not much I can do
about. Balrogs aren't described very often.
Graham Lockwood
scientifically accurate, nor was it intended to be. I seriously doubt that
Tolkien came up with that outline of events and then wrote about it without
the technical details.
>Did Gandalf really throw down his foe? He was, after all, in the form of
>an old man. Perhaps it was failed take-off attempt, or even Moria's
>version of the Hindenburg disaster. As Gandalf says, nobody else saw the
>battle. Was Gandalf stretching the truth in order to impress his allies?
>
maggot
>
> John R. Cooper (nos...@nospam.com) wrote:
> : On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 22:16:40 +0200, "Josep" <p...@megaiweb.com> wrote:
>
> : >
> : >D@vide Carboni escribió en mensaje
> : ><6rv54i$aa9$2...@server-b.cs.interbusiness.it>...
> : >>if Balrogs have wings why did Moria Balrog fall down when
> : >>Gandalf broke the bridge ??
> : >>
> : >IIRC, Tolkien states that the darkness that surrounded the Balrog spread
> : >"like two wings" -sorry, I don't have my books available. This is not the
> : >same as saiying that the Balrog HAD wings. Besides, wings are not
> : >necessarily strictly related to flight. Take penguins or kiwis, for
> : >instance.
>
> : Read a little further (past the initial description of the Balrog) and
> : you'll see that it spreads its wings to fill the entire chamber before
> : leaping onto the bridge. The text itself states quite clearly that the
> : Balrog had wings.
>
> Jonathan
It's not a matter of where he grips it. It's a matter of
wight ratio, and physics! A many thonged whip can not wrap
around a persons legs. I know, I've tried it!
maggot
maggot
>>So, Pro-Wingers: any thoughts on the matter of the Plummeting Balrog? :)
>>
>>...I myself have many problems with the "Balrogs-had-wings" school of
>>thought, but I do not post this with thoughts of swaying the opposition
>>or "winning" the "argument"; I am merely interested, and insatiably
>>curious. :) :)
Graham Lockwood wrote:
> "The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the
> darkness grew. It stepped forward on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew
> itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall;
> but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed small,
> and altogether alone: grey and bent, like a wizened tree before the onset of
> a storm." (FotR, p. 345 in my book)
"Something was coming up behind them. What it was could not
be seen. It was like a great shadow, in the middle of which
was a dark form, of man shape maybe..."
This was in the midst of a wall of fire that had only just
been bridged. This is also described as a, "dark figure
streaming with fire." Nothing is mentioned of wings on this
"man shape."
"His enemy halted again, and the shadow about it reached
like two vast wings."
Gandalf here says, "The dark fire will not avail you, flame
of Udun." (Udun, tolkien describes in his index simply as
'hell')
"It stepped forward on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew
itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from
wall to wall;"
The term wings is first a simile, then a metaphor for the
darkness that surrounds the Balrog. Otherwise the comment
that Gandalf could still be seen would be rather pointless,
having no reference for it. Tolkien may well have saved us
much debate had he written, "...it's wings of darkness
spread from wall to wall." or "it's wings of dark flame..."
but it would not have had the power that the metaphor
conveys by giving the darkness around the Balrog a tangible
essence.
You see, I don't see it written anywhere that the balrog had
wings, but I do see it written that a "great shadow"
surrounded this "dark figure" who is somehow connected to a
"dark fire" which is compared to wings. I certainly find
that easier to visualize than that a balrog standing on a
very narrow brige could have wings so enourmous as to touch
either wall of a "cavernous hall."
maggot
Megan Westerfield
> > Megan Westerfield wrote:
> > >how 'bout we all just agree to back off and start with a new attitude?
> > >just put down the baseball bats and act like adults? I know that with
> > >a group of highly intelligent ppl there is going to be conflict. But
> > >we do not have to succumb to our tempers.
> > Hear the Queen!
>
> Right on!! Hail to the Queen! I'll cancel already written posting on this
> matter as a token of my good will!!
Most noble of you. :) We can debate and discuss without
resorting to regression.
*Rabbyt the Elf-Queen
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>spoon<><><><><><><><><>
"Oh nobly born, let not thy mind be distracted. "
_The_Tibetan_Book_of_the_Dead_
Megan Westerfield
> > ) matters. Who had killed the Balrog? There were no witnesses,
> > ) the murder scene was broken and the evidence smashed, and
> > ) the only one who would talk about it was some crazed old
> > ) man who claimed _he_ did it. I knew the Balrog, and I
> > ) knew some old codger wasn't a match for him. He also said he
> Yeah, he was probably full of hot air.
yeah, like some of us on this newsgroup...just kidding, folks :)
Don't flame me for my sense of humour....sick and twisted though
it is....
have a nice day!
Ryan Paddy
>
> I think you're taking this way too seriously.
*LOL*
Righto!
Ryan
['Accidental humour is the best sort, don't you think?']
jan jordan
>
> Mike Kew wrote in message ...
> >On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Jouni Karhu <kur...@modeemi.cs.tut.fi> wrote
> >>
> >>Think not of sparrows when you think of flying; think of swans, or
> >>even bigger birds yet. And even those bigger birds have hollow bones,
> >>which the balrogs certainly do not have.
> >
> >Umm - you seem very certain of this... I don't recall anyone doing
> >a post-mortem on a Balrog?
>
> As I've said elsewhere, Tolkien wasn't big on scientific accuracy. There
> has never been anything on earth with hollow bones that was anything like
> the size of a balrog. As animals get bigger, their mass increases four
> times as fast as their length so bones have to get really big and strong.
> All of the really big birds, both extinct and extant, were flightless and
> all of the flightless birds had solid bones. From a biological standpoint,
> nothing the size of a balrog could possibly fly in Earth's gravity. Of
> course, neither can dragons but that's never stopped anybody. It's that
I dont know exactly what size a balrog is, but there existed flying
creatures on earth with wing spans of 15 m(some flying dinosaurs). much
more than any existing flying creature now. But anyway, i have to agree
that Tolkien didnt write scientific books and Balrogs arn't scientific
beeings. So there is no reason why they should be light in order to fly
or why they even needed wings to fly (superman doesnt need any either).
And on the other side why do they have to be able to fly if they have
wings. Maybe the wings are pure decoration? or just something that just
looked like wings? ore maybe something else?
In my opinion the balrog is more than a ugly creature with wings, it is
a supernatural beeing half physical body, half supernatural. tolkien
describes wings but wether they are physical or not he doesnt say. And
wether the balrog was able to fly with these wings he didnt say either (
maybe gandalf just didnt let him fly) Thats why my imagination of the
balrog looks different then any illustration of the balrog (My balrog
has no clear shape and the lesser part of his beeing is physical body.
And yes he has wings but only of smoky shadow) But still i can enjoy
other peoples imaginations of the balrog. Maybe you should try this too.
ciao
Jan
Graham Lockwood
>On 6 Sep 1998, !**?#!#$ wrote:
>
>> > ) matters. Who had killed the Balrog? There were no
witnesses,
>> > ) the murder scene was broken and the evidence smashed,
and
>> > ) the only one who would talk about it was some crazed
old
>> > ) man who claimed _he_ did it. I knew the Balrog, and I
>> > ) knew some old codger wasn't a match for him. He also
said he
>
>> Yeah, he was probably full of hot air.
>
>yeah, like some of us on this newsgroup...just kidding, folks :)
>
>Don't flame me for my sense of humour....sick and twisted though
>it is....
>
>have a nice day!
____ __
{ --.\ | .)%%%)%%
'-._\\ | (\___ %)%%(%%(%%%
`\\|{/ ^ _)-%(%%%%)%%;%%%
.'^^^^^^^ /` %%)%%%%)%%%'
jgs //\ ) , / '%%%%(%%'
, _.'/ `\<-- \<
`^^^` ^^ ^^
Look out! It's a hydrogen breathing dragon come to flame you! (or is it a
Balrog? I always get those two mixed up :-)
Megan Westerfield
> >Don't flame me for my sense of humour....sick and twisted though
> >it is....
> >
> >have a nice day!
>
>
> ____ __
> { --.\ | .)%%%)%%
> '-._\\ | (\___ %)%%(%%(%%%
> `\\|{/ ^ _)-%(%%%%)%%;%%%
> .'^^^^^^^ /` %%)%%%%)%%%'
> jgs //\ ) , / '%%%%(%%'
> , _.'/ `\<-- \<
> `^^^` ^^ ^^
>
> Look out! It's a hydrogen breathing dragon come to flame you! (or is it a
> Balrog? I always get those two mixed up :-)
THIS is FRICKIN' COOL.
Okay--here's the difference. We like some dragons, we hate all
Balrogs. Comprende?
!**?#!#$
Maybe you should read the line after --
maggot
!**?#!#$
> ) wall to wall;"
You seem to be missing a line that appears in my edition:
"The Balrog bent low to whisper in Gandalf's ear, 'Quick, Robin, to the
Balrog-cave.'"
Michael Martinez
>So, Pro-Wingers: any thoughts on the matter of the Plummeting Balrog? :)
As was often pointed out in the past, dead Balrogs don't fly. Of course,
that's just an interpretation based on the fact that other dead things never
fly in Tolkien, either.
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
//\\ <http://www.xenite.org/index.htm>
// \\ENITE.org...............................................
Bob Bayse
Michael Martinez
>Who said it was dead when it fell?
J.R.R. Tolkien. Of course, I suppose we could argue with him and say it was
still alive with a shred of textual evidence.
Let's see if someone does....
!**?#!#$
Micheal did. Isn't that like the Word of God?
!**?#!#$
> ) J.R.R. Tolkien. Of course, I suppose we could argue with him and say
it was
> ) still alive with a shred of textual evidence.
Or you could read was Oh actually wrote.
> ) Let's see if someone does....
Let's see what you snipped:
> to fully take wing and fly. But when it was fleeing from Gandalf a while
> later, it eventually ends up at the peak of Zirak-zigil... where there is
> presumably _plenty_ of room to fly
> ...
> (This would be a good time that Glorfindel's First Age Balrog also "fell
> backwards from the rock, and falling clutched Glorfindel's yellow locks
> beneath his cap, and those twain fell into the abyss" (_BoLT II_, p. 194
So, your contention is that the Balrog was already dead when it jumped out
of the window on Silvertine? (Gandalf was a backstabber?) Or is it your
contention that the Balrog clutched Glorfindel's locks after it died?
Disney boy, if you're going to resort to cut and paste arguments, you'd
better dispose of the originals first. And don't blame JRRT just because
you can't parse english.
Jouni Karhu
>"Something was coming up behind them. What it was could not
>be seen. It was like a great shadow, in the middle of which
>was a dark form, of man shape maybe..."
"What it was could not be seen." -> The Company can't make out any
details yet, just a great shadow.
>This was in the midst of a wall of fire that had only just
>been bridged. This is also described as a, "dark figure
>streaming with fire." Nothing is mentioned of wings on this
>"man shape."
(Isn't the dark fire burning on its body? A fire that does not give
out light? A fire that is quenched after the Balrog and Gandalf fall?)
>"His enemy halted again, and the shadow about it reached
>like two vast wings."
The Company sees the form spread out, and it looks like wings. They
still don't see enough details . . . but they sure do look like wings.
>Gandalf here says, "The dark fire will not avail you, flame
>of Udun." (Udun, tolkien describes in his index simply as
>'hell')
IMHO not talking about the 'wings'.
>"It stepped forward on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew
>itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from
>wall to wall;"
And now the Balrog can be seen as much as it can be, and lo and
behold, they really were wings.
>You see, I don't see it written anywhere that the balrog had
>wings, but I do see it written that a "great shadow"
>surrounded this "dark figure" who is somehow connected to a
>"dark fire" which is compared to wings. I certainly find
>that easier to visualize than that a balrog standing on a
>very narrow brige could have wings so enourmous as to touch
>either wall of a "cavernous hall."
Oh, by the way, wasn't the bridge in a different hall than the one
with the fire and all?
Interesting to debate interpretations of passages without the book
handy ;)
O. Sharp
referring to (wonder how _that_ could have happened? <g>), but I find the
initial premise quoted to be amusing:
: > ) >Who said it was dead when it fell?
: > )
: > ) J.R.R. Tolkien. Of course, I suppose we could argue with him and say
<raising an amused eyebrow> Am I reading this correctly? Is it being
posited that Gandalf, having already _defeated_ and _killed_ the Balrog,
and now about to die from his weariness and wounds, got the idea in his
head that he needed to just sort of casually _pick up_ the dead Balrog
and _throw_ it from the mountaintop? :) :)
Somehow Gandalf, even when he had more energy, never seemed to me like the
kind of guy who would go out of his way to do extra damage to an
already-dead enemy. When Theoden spoke to Saruman, saying Saruman's
troops "hewed Hama's body before the gates of the Hornburg, after he was
dead" (_TT_ p. 185 hardback), somehow I never thought of Gandalf as being
of the same temperament... :)
In any event, I did rather get the impression that the Balrog died
_because_ he "fell from the high place and broke the mountain-side *where
he smote it in his ruin*" (_TT_ p. 106 hb, emphasis mine). It would be an
effective way of killing it (assuming, of course, it was flightless).
Indeed, why else would Gandalf have gone to all the trouble of throwing
the thing off the mountaintop to _begin_ with? :)
: Or you could read was Oh actually wrote.
I certainly am glad _someone_ reads what I write. :) :) :)
: [snipppp] if you're going to resort to cut and paste arguments, you'd
: better dispose of the originals first.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
o...@netcom.com For the record, I have _not_ given any permissions
for third-party cancellation of my articles. :)