Quote:
|
I don't expect all to be crystal clear; indeed that takes some of the magic away from the story. But I can't help thinking that a skeleton and a more solid form are different enough in appearance that Frodo would have used different wording if what he was seeing was empty bones.~Inziladun
|
But that's my point Frodo didn't describe empty bones, because he didn't know what he saw other than an ambigious 'dark figure' which has been used to describe many things veiled in darkness or shadow. Could have been a spirit animating a skeleton, or a nemotoad, or any thing you could call a 'dark figure' (so...virtually anything).
The Balrog, Ringwraiths and such, we encounter more, and there is the chance for more description. Frodo doesn't get this with the Barrow-wight, just as Gandalf doesn't tell us anymore about the 'dark gnawing' creatures at the bottom of the bottomless pit. We don't get more from Gandalf, because he was having Balrog issues and probably didn't care to investigate into more detail about the Moria critters.
I'm not saying you aren't correct, maybe there was more than just bones to the wight, but pointing out because you think Frodo
would have described empty bones differently, if he had seen just empty bones, I don't agree with that type of argument. Because all Frodo described was a dark figure (not surprising in a dark, foggy area) and a cold hand grasped him tight.