Bye Bye Balrogs

[Mister Underhill]

Posted by lindil:

well I have tried to post this on bye bye balrogs for several hours and all i get is - network is busy!


so... here is a reply which belongs on the bye byre Balrog thread, if any one else can open it feel free to cut and paste it in and i can delete this later - also as i mention at the end , i can't read the new post[s] in the 'intro to the forum/project thread' so if someone will please email them to me - much thanks


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Aiwendil: ... all indications are that JRRT considered the tale of
Earendil
part of the Atanatarion, the great tales of the fathers of men from
the first age. In Myths
Transformed he breaks the later stories down into the Narn
Beren ion Barahir and the Narn e
mbar Hador; and he divides the latter into Narn i Chin Hurin and
Narn en El. He seems to
consider these the longer versions of the stories told in brief in
the Quenta Silmarillion. I think
it's unlikely that he intended the Earendil story to be
disproportionately shorter than the others.
lindil: Very true of course, I was pondering rather how the shortness of the tale could possibly
be explained from within the legendarium itself.


aiwendil: Ambiguous Balrogs




quote:

... and {upon} with them {rode} came the Balrogs {in
hundreds};

lindil : If we are being vague about numbers why not say 'and with them rode the Balrogs

possibly adding [ as captains?]

if we have no specific number then we need not have in mind that a 'horde' was riding in , but
Balrogs riding dragons would indeed stick in the minds of any survivors.

A: if we change the mechanical dragons to real ones, they may no longer serve as
transport.

Lindil: I think it says in the LR quenta that Winged drgons appeared first at the War of wrath.
Glaurung was a crawler.





FG-B03.5 Rog's slaughter

quote:

{Fearful too they were for that slaughter Rog had done
amid the Balrogs, because
of tose demons they had great courage and confidence of
heart.}
Now then the plan that they made was to hold what they
had won, while those
serpents of bronze and with great feet for trampling
climbed slowly over those of
iron, and reaching the walls there opened a breach
wherethrough the Balrogs
might {ride} come {upon} with the dragons of flame . . .

lindil: I suggest for the first sentence -
Fearful too they were for that slaughter Rog <and his company> had done [amid] to the
Balrog{s}, <for because
of [those demons] <them> they had great courage and
confidence of heart.}

Aiwendil: At any rate, Rog, whether he kills a Balrog or not, cannot be said to have done
slaughter
amid them. The change in the second paragraph eliminates
Balrogs riding on dragons.

lindil : I think the word slaughter is OK , do we not 'slaughter ' a single pig? plus there may
well hve been a sort of vengeful glee among the elves as thy took down a balrog.

FG-B04: Entrance into the city
jallanite:

quote:

... and behind comes a creature of fire and a Balrog{s}
upon it.


Aiwendil:
[/QUOTE]... and behind comes a creature of fire and Balrogs and
monsters with it.[/QUOTE]

It may seem odd to restore the Balrogs plural. But jallanite's
original change here was, I think,
designed not to reduce the number of Balrogs in the scene, but
to limit the dragons to one
Balrog each. If, as I suggest, we eliminate the dragon-riders
altogether, the ‘s' on the end of
‘Balrogs' can stand. My ‘and monsters' is dubious, but follows the
trend of this proposed
revision. I don't think there's any problem with dropping it,
though - there's no reason, even if
there were only four Balrogs, that not more than one could have
been in the square.

lindil: hmmm.At the risk of looking dumb why are we cutting down on dragons? sorry if I
missed that point.
Again they are not flying drgons so can not a balrog or 2 ride - whether they need to or not.

FG-B05: Ecthelion against the Balrogs
jallanite:

Aiwendil: the mention of
‘three', as innocent as it looks, says things about how many
Balrogs there are and aren't.

lindil: agreed
FG-B06: The Great Market
jallanite:
quote:

... where a force of Or[k]s {led by Balrogs} came on them
at unawares ....



or

quote:

... where a force of Or[k]s {led by Balrogs} came on them
at unawares ....


Aiwendil:
Go with jallanite's first proposal or:

quote:

... where a force of Orcs {led by Balrogs} and monsters
came on them at
unawares


Though I get the feeling I'm stretching ‘monsters' a bit by now.

lindil : much agreed
FG-B07: To the Square of the King
jallanite:

quote:

But now the men of M[orgoth] have assembled their
forces, and seven dragons of
fire are come with Or[k]s about them and a Balrog{s}
upon one of them down all
the ways from [sou]th, [we]st, and [ea]st, seeking the
Square of the King.


Aiwendil:

quote:

But now the men of M[orgoth] have assembled their
forces, and seven dragons of
fire are come with Or[k]s a Balrog about them {and
Balrogs upon them} down
all the ways from [sou]th, [we]st, and [ea]st, seeking the
Square of the King.

Lindil: again I favor keeping the riding balrog and thus I think J's version can stand.

This Balrog must be kept, and must be Gothmog, as he appears in
the next paragraph.
lindil: agreed
A: I have
eliminated the dragon-riding.

Lindil:not sure I understood the tech question, so I will leave that to others.

I favor leaving rog killing one balrog - a canon question. However,[though this is really a
question for a later phase of aesthetic revision -if we have one] I do not favor leaving his name
as Rog, it is what I would call be a literary imposibility in any revision JRRT would have made,
and indeed [though not conclusive] we do not see him in the SoME version

looking in WotJ' I am of the opinion that the '7 at most ever existed' note should be classified
as an unworkable revision. It should temper our hand w/' horde's and hundred's , but I would
not eliminate the Rog scene [ or now that I think of it the four in the courtyard].

Personally I would like to mention trolls somehow though I know it would be a stretch, we are
adding 'demons' aren't we?
Would they not be a logical clarification of 'monsters' ? almost as if JRRT was imaging more
but the details had not yet become clear. They seem to first appear in the hobbit, i see no trace
of them in IV or V or WotJ. They are mentioned in X [MT] as having been made by Morgth,
but did JRRT ever use them? None the less there existance is far more substatial than the
boldog's , although i much agree [literarily] of using that.
Mr Underhill is this not a bit of lore upon which you have pondered?


Actually is CRT adding them in QS77 in Hurin's slaughter before being captured ? I did not
see them in WotJ's when I just looked for it.

-lindil

also can someone please email me the most recent posts in the intro thread , I can not no
matter what I try open it.

- much thanks
-l