Why destroy Laketown's bridge?

[Sauron the White]

from the Sixth Wizard

Look, if you are going to criticise Tolkien for writing poorly, and your source for this is his own pictures, you're not making sense to me. There is a simple explanation - the picture is fallible, the text is not. Tell me straight; do you agree or disagree with that explanation? Are you trying to say that Tolkien draws more accurately than he writes, or writes according to his drawings? Sauron, you don't have much room to stand here.

A picture can say a thousand words. The section in the text on the bridge is short and brief. The illustration - by JRRT himself - is very detailed compared to the scant description in the text. And there is nothing in the text which contradicts the illustration. In both it is a heavy wooden bridge. Period

I find it interesting that so many want to ignore or simply pretend that illustration did not exist. It reminds me of songwriter Paul Simons observation:

Simon & Garfunkel "The Boxer"

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

And I love how some here can act as if they are handing down the Truth from the Mountaintop on the anatomy and physics of mythical creatures. Amazing powers indeed.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I find it interesting that so many want to ignore or simply pretend that illustration did not exist. It reminds me of songwriter Paul Simons observation:

Simon & Garfunkel "The Boxer"

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

Where was this done, please? Who stated we wanted to ignore the illustration? Who said we should pretend it does not exist?

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Sauron

And so is the main bridge that so many here seem to think Smaug would have walked across to the town. If I may quote you "one mis-step and Smaug would end up in the water and his attack would have been foiled". That applies to the bridge also.

Sauron, as Rikae has just stated, landing is by far more difficult than walking. I thought that was too obvious to be pointed out.

Originally Posted by Sauron

In the absence of measurements - which nobody has - this is impossible to state either way. Do you know how wide his wings were when outstretched? Do you know how wide the docks were? Do you know the exact configuration of his wings? Do you know anything about the balance problems of a mythical dragon.

No, I don't. However, I got the feeling his wings weren't the size they are in the picture Esty posted. And if we take a look at the second of Tolkien's pictures that davem posted, and take the measurements suggested there, I see my point backed. I didn't claim that I proved something, in case you forgot, I just pointed out that the inability of Smaug to land in Laketown is plausible.

Originally Posted by Sauron

It is not conjecture that I say Smaug was effective by air.

Of course not. If you would have taken the time to properly read my post, you might even have spotted that I did not claim that. It's conjecture that Smaug's attack was most effective by air. This leaves the possibility that the devastating air attack was not devastating enough to Smaug's liking, which is exactly what the text suggests!

Originally Posted by Sauron

If you think dragons are so effective on the ground and they were such a lethal unstoppable killing machine, perhaps you could also speculate on why Morgoth tried so hard for so long to give them wings. Perhaps the SILMARALLION would tell us that.

-Glaurung conquered Nargothrond on foot.
-The Dwarves, who have more of a resistance to fire (due to armour and nature) than Men, managed to injure Glaurung - under heavy losses.
-An army of walking dragons destroyed Gondolin.
All this they did with unprotected bellies, which makes them less effective ground attackers than Smaug. Glaurung was killed by one of the greatest men in ME-history - who had to hide and surprise-attack him. We are not told that any other dragon has ever lost his life (prior to the War of Wrath, that is).

Again, I did not claim wings are useless to dragons. They add a deadly alternative attack to them, plus the many other benefits like speedy transportation and elevated perspective. Flying makes a dragon more powerful, but it is stated nowhere, I think, that it becomes their chief kind of attack.

Originally Posted by Sauron

please.... Please.... PLEASE ...... somebody just quote directly from Tolkien in the text where it clearly says that
SMAUGS INTENT WAS TO ENTER LAKETOWN ON FOOT.
I beg you. I implore you. I humbly ask of you. Show me that in black and white.

Rikae has just given it. The text says that due to the destroying of the bridges, he was foiled. This directly implies that the bridges had some vital part in the then foiled plans of Smaug. What this vital part is, is left unclear. We suggest that he intended to walk over it. We say that this is the only valid conclusion, because there doesn't seem to be any other conceivable use for it. This is as much of a proof we can give you.

You say it isn't so. If you do not accept it, then what other conclusion do you draw?

[Sauron the White]

from Rikae

Here, you ask Mac if he thinks the railing would restrain Smaug if he "lost his balance". Are you arguing that Smaug would be just as surefooted in the process of landing as he would while walking? Sure, that's possible - but the point is, it is also quite possible he wasn't, and the this makes more sense in the light of the text itself.

Given the age of Smaug, given the number of landings he has executed in his long lifetime, given the very flat and wide nature of the docks..... yes Rikae, I think he would be just as surefooted in landing on the docks as he would walking across a bridge ... and I would add especially a bridge that he would be met with resistance upon.

from Bethberry

Who stated we wanted to ignore the illustration? Who said we should pretend it does not exist?

Several have said to use the text and not the illustrations. Here is a very clear one.

from davem today at 2:12 on this very page

So, forget the illustrations

and from davem yesterday

As to the picture, it is wrong

I am pretty sure that if there was an illustration of 100 townspeople dynamiting the Laketown bridge it certainly would have been used to try and disprove my main point. But since the illustration by JRRT shows a substantial bridge supported by numerous and thick pylons and supports my point that it is not easily thrown down and destroyed we get the convenient call to forget the illustrations.

[Sauron the White]

from Macalaure

Glaurung was killed by one of the greatest men in ME-history - who had to hide and surprise-attack him. We are not told that any other dragon has ever lost his life (prior to the War of Wrath, that is).

Yes, that is true. It is also true that he is one of greatest men in ME history because he did perform that deed. Perhaps if someone in Laketown they would establish their storied reputation? But that is speculation. I find it interesting that some of the topography of Laketown would offer much the same opportunity as was available to Turin. The town had canals and smaller bridges and when Smaug stepped across a smart armed man could have attempted the same thing as Turin did. At least it was possible should the situation present itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauron
please.... Please.... PLEASE ...... somebody just quote directly from Tolkien in the text where it clearly says that
SMAUGS INTENT WAS TO ENTER LAKETOWN ON FOOT.
I beg you. I implore you. I humbly ask of you. Show me that in black and white.

Rikae has just given it. The text says that due to the destroying of the bridges, he was foiled. This directly implies that the bridges had some vital part in the then foiled plans of Smaug. What this vital part is, is left unclear. We suggest that he intended to walk over it. We say that this is the only valid conclusion, because there doesn't seem to be any other conceivable use for it. This is as much of a proof we can give you.

You say it isn't so. If you do not accept it, then what other conclusion do you draw?

With all due respect - NO she did not. What she provided was more conjecture and supposition based on how she sees and reads the text. I agree that Smaug had plans for the bridge. What were those plans I do not know. It is possible that he wanted to destroy it himself just for the satisfaction of it. It is possible he saw the bridge as a way to trap hundreds of fleeing people and get them all in one very convenient place. Nothing in the text indicates otherwise. It merely says Smaug was foiled in his plans but we know nothing of what they were.

Although we are told that he greatly enjoyed the game of killing and hunting the people and intended to do that to those who escaped. Perhaps killing those trying to also escape by bridge was just the first round in his cat and mouse game? I really do not know for a fact and neither does anyone else.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I agree that Smaug had plans for the bridge. What were those plans I do not know. It is possible that he wanted to destroy it himself just for the satisfaction of it. It is possible he saw the bridge as a way to trap hundreds of fleeing people and get them all in one very convenient place. Nothing in the text indicates otherwise. It merely says Smaug was foiled in his plans but we know nothing of what they were.

Although we are told that he greatly enjoyed the game of killing and hunting the people and intended to do that to those who escaped. Perhaps killing those trying to also escape by bridge was just the first round in his cat and mouse game? I really do not know for a fact and neither does anyone else.

Just one question (and I think I already asked it and didn't get an answer) - if this was the case, how is the fact that his enemies are now "on an island in deep water too deep and dark and cool for his liking" relevant? Why did Tolkien include that in the second half of the sentence, according to your theory?
Furthermore, why add "if he plunged into it, a vapour and a steam would arise enough to cover all the land with a mist for days; but the lake was mightier than he, it would quench him before he could pass through" if all he had in mind was a cat-and-mouse game involving the bridge (why would there be any question of him "plunging into" or "passing through" the water at all in that case?) Why explain, that is, why he can't risk falling into the water or pass through it, if that were never an issue anyway?

[Quempel]

Why would Smaug need to land at all? I have never understood why he would need to land at all. Of course I am thinking that stealth bombers actually do better in the air than on land. I don't know if that is a fair comparison, but if I could breath fire, destroy towns and fly, I wouldn't be caught walking across a bridge.

[Sauron the White]

here is the description by JRRT in the text

A great bridge made of wood ran out to where on huge piles made of forest trees was built a busy wooden town, not a town of elves but of Men, who still dared to dwell here under the shadow of the distant dragonmountain.

Macaluare asks

About the picture: If it wouldn't show something which is contradicting to the book, nobody would be willing to discard it. You seem to try to use the picture in order to disprove the book, which is - I'm sorry - ridiculous.

You claim that the picture contradicts the text. Could you take the above description by JRRT and explain where it contradicts what he shows in the picture because I see no such problem or difficulty.

from Rikae

Just one question (and I think I already asked it and didn't get an answer) - if this was the case, how is the fact that his enemies are now "on an island in deep water too deep and dark and cool for his liking" relevant? Why did Tolkien include that in the second half of the sentence, according to your theory?

I have no "theory" about what that passage means.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Quempel

Why would Smaug need to land at all? I have never understood why he would need to land at all. Of course I am thinking that stealth bombers actually do better in the air than on land. I don't know if that is a fair comparison, but if I could breath fire, destroy towns and fly, I wouldn't be caught walking across a bridge.

Anglo-Saxon warriors rode into battle & then fought on foot. Even against enemy cavalry they would dismount, set up their shield wall & literally stand their ground. You may as well ask why, if they had horses they wouldn't use them in battle. They didn't use them because that wasn't the way they fought. Now, it may well be that Dragons, being originally earth-bound, naturally fought on foot & if they had the option only used their wings to get from A to B....or it may not. The point though, is that the mere fact that dragons had the capability of aerial assault doesn't mean they would choose to fight in that way.

Going back to the first mention of Smaug's attack on the Lonely Mountain we find:

One day he flew up into the air and came south. The first we heard of it was a noise like a hurricane coming from the North, and the pine-trees on the Mountain creaking and cracking in the wind. Some of the dwarves who happened to be outside (I was one luckily a fine adventurous lad in those days, always wandering about, and it saved my life that day) - well, from a good way off we saw the dragon settle on our mountain in a spout of flame. Then he came down the slopes and when he reached the woods they all went up in fire. A Long Expected Party

Smaug flies to the mountain, lands on it, & then comes down the slopes & sets the woods on fire. I take that to mean that he landed & then crawled down. The alternative, that he landed, then took off & flew down to the woods doesn't make sense - why land on the mountain-top at all - why not just fly to the woods directly?

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I have no "theory" about what that passage means.

Ok - but what do you think it means?

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Sauron

You claim that the picture contradicts the text. Could you take the above description by JRRT and explain where it contradicts what he shows in the picture because I see no such problem or difficulty.

Like I said before, you're only regarding the quotes that support your view and disregard everything else.

The view I (and almost all others) presented is the only plausible one, despite all you said. If your only point is that no statement can be made, and that Tolkien isn't beyond all contrivable doubt clear in what he says, then have it.

[Sauron the White]

davem & others
the faults on one picture do not apply to the picture of a different subject.

The behavior of Smaug - and some of that behavior is inferred by you - does not mean he behaved like that in each and every case.

One does not prove or disprove the other.

You push on my meaning of this ... okay .... your wish is my command

what does this mean

"on an island in deep water too deep and dark and cool for his liking"

It means that Smaug did not like water. So its easy to then see that he would want to be as far away from it as possible. Thus, an attack for the air was his preferred mode of attack and would not land being closer to the water.

Happy now?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

It means that Smaug did not like water. So its easy to then see that he would want to be as far away from it as possible. Thus, an attack for the air was his preferred mode of attack and would not land being closer to the water.

Happy now?

Amid shrieks and wailing and the shouts of men he came over them, swept towards the bridges and was foiled! The bridge was gone, and his enemies were on an island in deep water too deep and dark and cool for his liking.

In what way, then, was he 'foiled' by the destruction of the bridge(s)? The implication is that he couldn't get to his 'enemies' as he first intended - because they were on an island in deep water.

[Macalaure]

It means that Smaug did not like water. So its easy to then see that he would want to be as far away from it as possible. Thus, an attack for the air was his preferred mode of attack and would not land being closer to the water.

Happy now?

You are aware that that quote comes after Smaug found the bridges destroyed? Therefore, it was his preferred mode of attack after whatever mysterious mode of attack he had in mind before. You will find nobody disagreeing on that.

[Bêthberry]

After all this downing of the Bridge, I hope you won't be drowning in the Browning paper, Rikae.

yes indeed; it's not The Boxer; it is The Dangling Conversation.

But I did appreciate the small refrain of Bridge Over Troubled Waters which two of our members played.

And I want everyone to know that I could not find one pair of Lord of The Rings boxers. I found Star wars ones, and Harry Potter ones, and Shrek ones, but not one having anything to do with Tolkien. The Welsh dragon was the closest.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Sauron

given the very flat and wide nature of the docks

We seem to have a different kind of perception. If I look at the illustrations, I do not see docks that are very wide. I see docks that, without the houses and the close vicinity to water, would be just wide enough for him to land.

About the picture: If it wouldn't show something which is contradicting to the book, nobody would be willing to discard it. You seem to try to use the picture in order to disprove the book, which is - I'm sorry - ridiculous.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

from Bethberry

Several have said to use the text and not the illustrations. Here is a very clear one.

from davem today at 2:12 on this very page

I am pretty sure that if there was an illustration of 100 townspeople dynamiting the Laketown bridge it certainly would have been used to try and disprove my main point. But since the illustration by JRRT shows a substantial bridge supported by numerous and thick pylons and supports my point that it is not easily thrown down and destroyed we get the convenient call to forget the illustrations.

Hmmm. Hummm. Harrroooom. Let us not be hasty in condemning these calls about the reliablity of the pictures. You seem to have overlooked some of the reasons given.

davem points out that perspective is wrong in one illustration.

Tiny Bilbo

Perhaps the next step is to examine and cross examine all of Tolkien's illustrations to see if this characteristic is present in the entire spectrum of Tolkien's illustrations. And then we could discuss the merits of perspective per se. But davem's call was based on some evidence.

Ibrin provides a quotation from Tolkien himself, from the Letters:

My own pictures are an unsafe guide.

That tag for the link is a quotation from Tolkien; Ibrin says it is in Letter #27. Perhaps someone could check to verify if she has quoted it correctly and fairly and within context? I'll reiterate the full quotation from Tolkien just so we can see what reason she offerred for suggesting that the illustrations do not have authorial authority:

Originally Posted by Tolkien, Letter #27, apparently

I am afraid, if you will need drawings of hobbits in various attitudes, I must leave it in the hands of someone who can draw. My own pictures are an unsafe guide.

Oh, but wait! This was written in relation to Tolkien's ability to draw hobbits, not in relation to his ability to draw landscapes. Funny, I seem to recall several of Tolkien's landscapes which lack perspective or depth. But perhaps we need an Art Historian to provide a reliable evaluation of Tolkien's illustrations, as the man himself obviously was too humble and modest about his talents.

So therefore, based on the examples of these two posters, davem and Ibrin (the latter of whom StW completely ignored) would appear that the arguments of only one person at least fall into this category:

Originally Posted by StW

It reminds me of songwriter Paul Simons observation:

Simon & Garfunkel "The Boxer"

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

And as for Boxers and Dragons, well, let us enjoy ourselves with contemplating these possibilities: