Posted: June 25, 2000 at 06:25:22: by Michael Martinez
: The fact that they arose and passed over Hithlum is ambiguous.
: Such an account could mean that they grouped together and
: footed it as easily as it could mean they leapt into the air
: and flew. Just because elves lived there at the time does not
: mean they had to witness the passing of the balrogs.The Hithlum passage is not that simple. The Balrogs arrived as a tempest of fire. It's the "tempest of fire" part of the passage that is the most crucial, but all the parts must be taken together. They cannot (at least, they have not yet) be replaced by equivalent phrases which mean anything other than flight occurred. [snip] : The "tempest of fire" description of the balrogs' attack a
: little tricky. Let's look at two of the definitions for
: "tempest" as offered up in "The American Heritage College
: Dictionary" AHCD: : "1. A violent windstorm, frequently accompanied by rain, snow,
: or hail."
: "2. Furious agitation, commotion, or tumult; an uproar." : In the non-wingers defense, windstorms do not necessarily
: descend from the sky; they can sweep across the land. Nonetheless, they are a part of the sky. The sky begins where the ground begins. : Such a descriptor has been used many a time to describe the
: actions of invading forces, and it's not difficult to see how
: the second definition fits with marauding balrogs. But such a descriptor has not been used of invading forces alongside "swiftly they arose" and "passing with winged speed over ..." Failing to take the entire passage into consideration invalidates any attempt at analysis. All you're doing is taking phrases out of context. It would be just as invalid to say, "Well, Tolkien used 'tempest of fire' to speak of the flying dragons, so 'tempest of fire' can only refer to things in the sky". It refers to flying Balrogs because the rest of the sentence, taken together with "tempest of fire", makes it clear that they were in the sky. Your other criticisms are fair. But if one side raises an issue, no matter how illogical, the other side should respond, or an impression is laid upon the audience of an invincible argument having been given. No argument is truly invincible. People will debate the Balrog wings issues for years. If people were to agree to evaluate just one passage, there would be no debate, but that wouldn't guarantee that the right view had been accepted by all. There isn't really anything to be gained from the study of Balrogs, except perhaps an insight into J.R.R. Tolkien's vision of dreadful evil.
------------------
Xenite.Org: Science Fiction and Fantasy
| 
