<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Pile o' Bones
Posts: 23</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
umm
<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> What it does show is precedent for using a simile as a way to foreshadow the full reveal of a creature. We can’t simply take for granted the use of a metaphor, as you have done. <hr></blockquote>
No it does not the circumstances are completely different. The Balrog is not casting a shadow as the Eagle is and if he was then I would have no argument.
<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> In the case of the eagle, the shadow is “like the shape of great wings”. Well, isn’t the shadow actually “the shape of great wings”? Of course it is. Tolkien has used this technique before. That’s all I’m showing.<blockquote>
Quote:<hr>
Oh plz the shadow is being cast by the Eagle and so is a reflection of its form while the Balrog's shadow is part of its form. Did you even read my arguement?
<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> I submit that Tolkien does show a pattern of portraying mysterious characters/creatures (especially his bad guys) as “shadows” until they draw close enough to b<hr></blockquote><hr></blockquote><hr></blockquote>
He did not portray the Balrog as a shadow the Shadow was a characteristic of the Balrogs corporeal form.
In your example you have only cited areas in which tolkien used shadow as in that cast and so determined by the form and where a shawdow was described because of a lack of visual stimuli. That is not the case in with the Balrog tolkien is quick dogmatic about it and as such your examples are flawed.
you didn't even respond to my point tyou side-steped it.
<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> Tolkien also frequently uses “like” in ways that shatter what you seem to perceive as the iron-bound rules for simile use. Not to belabor the point too far but here are a few instances: <hr></blockquote>
Oh plz I never said the term "like" is always indictive of a simile, must I define simile for you? Context is what determines what it is and you can't argue that the text in question does not contain a simle because it does any first year english freshmen could tell you that.
<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> I’m saying that the versions you cite represent a refining process, and that attempting to figure out Tolkien’s “final intentions” from early drafts is often misleading. Your assertion that the drafts remained substantially unaltered is not correct. The earliest version (Vol 7., Sec II) doesn’t have references to either shadows or to wings. In early notes, Tolkien thought that Gandalf’s opponent might be a Nazgûl; in later notes, he wondered if the Balrog was actually Saruman. There was clearly a lot of work done here. If Tolkien wanted the Balrog to have a more menacing, imposing presence, is not equally reasonable to deduce from your references that he would add wings to achieve this effect? <hr></blockquote>
Tolkien says himself he wanted the Balrog to seem greater then it actually was to add massive wings is to make the balrog great by definition and so it would be menacing because of its physical stature which is exactly what he wanted to avoid. To make something feel greater is not to actually make it greater.
The simile is present in the previous drafts but not the metaphor( and yes metaphors by definition seem to be statements of fact and can confuse some but the whole point of prempting the mention of wing with a simile was to make it perfctly clear) indicating that tolkien wanted to keep the idea of wings of shadow, since it is also present in the finalized version, but to have an actual appendage be present in the form of another characteristic would simply confuse the issue and in essence undo the shadow mentioning which has been maintained not only through out the drafts to the finalized version but also in the silm.
<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> In this case, “winged” can seemingly be read however the reader wants to read it (even your own definition says “move with wings”). But the use of the word “wing” in its various forms seems to be cropping up quite a bit, doesn’t it? Are you telling me that Tolkien, a master of the English language, a philologist by training and by nature, and a contributor to the Oxford English Dictionary, couldn’t come up with a different descriptive word to get his point clearly across? If you are, then I simply disagree with you. <hr></blockquote>
"Winged" in the context of your supposed proof doesn't actually have to mean that wings are in any way involved. Your own definition proves that. What I am saying is tolkien only used "wing(ed)" in the context of balrogs twice, hardly conclusive evidence, especially because he also used it in the context of a hobbit, perhaps hobbits have wings as well. Winged in one is often used to denote similarity as established by your definition and mine and it is not a stretch to say they moved as if with wings because I have already established that the moved very very quickly and wing in the other is in all probability a metaphor since the premptive simile established it as such.
<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> It’s the “rivers of flame” (i.e, lava) that “ran down” here. It’s interesting that you use this reference. “Thangorodrim” refers to the sheer mountains reared above Angband, not the fortress itself. This analogy, especially when coupled with “flying from Thangorodrim” in LotR, is extremely suggestive of flight. See Thorondor’s rescue of Maedhros and Fingon. It’s a bit ridiculous to picture un-winged Balrogs running down sheer mountain faces.
As to the issue of their speed – I agree that they are speedy. Which to my mind argues in favor of wings. Nothing in Tolkien’s world (that I know of) travels faster than his winged creatures. His eagles, the Nazgûls’ winged steeds, and yes, the Balrogs, all travel with alarming speed. <hr></blockquote>
Pure conjecture, Are you saying there is no precident in tolkien's writings for land bound extreme speed? Plz tell me you are <img src=wink.gif ALT="
">
<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> I am not disputing that "winged" can be used metaphorically. But again I have to wonder why "winged", "wings", "flying", etc. keep cropping up in relation to Balrogs. <hr></blockquote>
once to denote the shadow a well established featur e of the Balrog and the other to denote speed. Again twice hardly qualifies as a pattern.
<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> I don’t think this contradicts my observation. This quote doesn’t say They passed over the plains of Rohan; it says they passed twice twelve leagues over the plains of Rohan. <hr></blockquote>
Oh plz, how is that any differnent form: "they passed
with winged speed over Hithlum," the structure is exactly the same the only diffenernt being what the insertion denotes, one being speed the other distance, hardly diametric opposites.
<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> War passes “over” a land, not “through” it. This isn’t travel, but war. Tolkien often likens war to a tide or a wave. The useage is correct. <hr></blockquote>
Of course war passes through land. Besides War in this context is a noun not a verb and so saying that it traveled over land is no different from saying I passed over that same land unless the war was in the clouds.
<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> This doesn’t help your case, but rather supports mine. The Nazgûl were traveling on winged steeds by this point... <hr></blockquote>
I don't know why I typed those but it hardly hurts my case in that I mean to show that tolkien was not bound by those rules you put forth and in fact broke your commandment in a variety of ways despite the fact in some places his wording was inline with it. Looking at everything as a wehole is much more objective then looking at only certain passages.
<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> The Dagorlad is a battlefield, not a region. I admit, this one is cutting it close, but I think the useage is proper here. They crossed the battlefield. <hr></blockquote>
Yes and I suppose the plains of Rohan and Hitlim are not regions either?
<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> Where are you getting this from? Hithlum looks like a plain to me, and is often described as being “bounded” by various mountain ranges. And anyway, if it was mountainous, I fear that helps my argument more than it does yours, as mountainous terrain would tend to slow down landbound travel. <hr></blockquote>
I was very tired at the time of that posting and I said and posted something which really don't mnake sense in the light of day. That too does not hurt my argument since mountasinous terrain was not much of a hurtile for the creatures of morgoth but was more of a shield. Case in point Gondolin.
We have no idea how pragmatic the Balrogs were nor do I see how it matters that mountains proved a hinderance, The Blue Mountains and the Misty mountains also proved a hinderance did they not? Does that mena the Eldar flew over them? The fact is we don't know how the Balrogs traveled through mountianous regions but they did not fly. Case in poin Glorfindel's friend the jumper.
<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> Whether you think it works or not, Tolkien did it. I have shown several precedents. <hr></blockquote>
You have shown nothing of the kind as I have addressed in the begining of this post. It seems you just don't wish to or can't respond. Besides you have shown no precedients paralell to the Balrog instance since the shadow is not a product of the form or lack of visusl stimulis.
Plz respond to my points instead of simply changing the issue or infering something other.
<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> This is one of those questions that has no real answer, like “Why didn’t the good guys just use the eagles to fly them to the Cracks of Doom and throw the Ring in?” Since the Balrogs couldn’t breathe fire, like some dragons, I imagine they had to land to engage their enemies. <hr></blockquote>
Then why is their no instance of them landing? Besides, there is a varitable coracopea or weapons they could utilize from the saftey of the air fire, even if not breathed, is one of them, (eg whips of flame)
<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> It doesn’t say that the Balrogs weren’t flying. This little bit is a greatly compressed piece of action. I don’t think you can draw any conclusive facts from it one way or the other:<hr></blockquote>
Is that a response?, it clearly states that the Balrogs were behind the Dragon and the orcs were behind them. I guss it is possible that the ground under the Balrog was left empty for some reason, right? :P
<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> Lay on, Fingolfin! I’m ready! <hr></blockquote>
I was going to but I didn't expect you to be so barrel-headed (not that that is a bad thing <img src=smile.gif ALT="
"> )
-------------------------------
I dislike having to type lengthy posts in which I can only touch on each issue, perhaps it would be more apt to adress one issue at a time. especially since my time on allotted on the inter net is extremely limited <img src=frown.gif ALT="
">
</p>