Dread Horseman
Posts: 690
Re: umm
Quite right, Mith. Fingolfin, I haven't asked you to leave. On the contrary, I encourage you to post as often as you like and to stay as long as you want to. After all, it was your first long post that reinvigorated this discussion.
But we've reached an impasse. You think I sidestepped your points; I think I met them as well as I am able. You think I am wrong about the grammar, and I think you are wrong. What am I to do? I'm certainly not going to start pulling quotes from "The Elements of Style" or some other grammar manual, and there's no point in going back over the same arguments a second time. If my arguments are insufficient, then so be it. I'm just here to have fun and express my ideas, not to win or lose.
I would add, though, that name-calling and sarcastic arguments are probably not the best way to stimulate further discussion. I am not generally inclined to spend time researching and composing posts to rebut arguments that begin with the phrase, "Oh plz..." Mithadan is right -- debates like this one that get so detail-oriented can rouse strong sentiments among the participants. I apologize if I've said something that's helped to escalate matters.
obloquy:
Thank you for the compliment. Despite being a vigorous advocate for wings, I am inclined to agree that Tolkien never really solidified his conception of Balrogs the way he did other of his creatures. Certainly we see many different versions of them throughout his work.
I am a big fan of Dickens, and I acknowledge your analogous cite. I think I disagree, though, that it really is analogous in this case. Dickens deliberately uses "bird's nest" the second time for comic effect (an ability with which he was well endowed).
I think that the same argument that non-wingers use against "its wings were spread from wall to wall" can be used equally against their own "shadow wings". If you step back a few paragraphs from "the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings", you'll find the quote I mentioned earlier: "What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater..."
Could we not contend, based on this quote, that the "shadow" itself is metaphorical -- that the Balrog's dark form, especially in the gloom of Moria, is only like a shadow? I think what's happening here is that Tolkien has swathed his beastie in shadow and darkness (as he so often did with the Nazgūl) to heighten its mystery and menace before it steps forward, stands up to its full great height and spreads its wings -- its ultimate intimidating pose.
Gandalf the White:
The argument over wings/no wings basically boils down to trying to figure out Tolkien's meaning from the words he used. Since the encounter with the Balrog is over so quickly, there is little to go on, and the little that does exist is worded in such a way that opposing interpretations of it both seem reasonable. Both sides have been trying to bring in, in effect, circumstantial evidence that tips the scales in favor of one reading over the other.
Edited by: Mister Underhill at: 6/27/01 9:30:12 am
|