Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: What if Balrogs had wings?? References: X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999) From: <<>> (Steuard Jensen) Lines: 588 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 06:24:17 GMT [Side note: it's often easier to read a discussion if you trim it down a little bit more, so you quote just enough of the foregoing material and context for your response to make sense. For example, leading up to my first response below, I've trimmed over 60 lines quoted in your message down to just 17... and six of those are a picture. For more details on this and other netiquette topics, take a look at the "Newsgroups and Netiquette" section of my Tolkien Newsgroups FAQ, at http://tolkien.slimy.com/faq/.] This is a very long post. And significantly, one of the questions Jonathan asked near the end of it has made me seriously worry that I've totally failed to explain my mental image of the "shadow" to him. Thus, the final page or two might be the most crucial part of this post. Feel free to take a look down there first (in his question starting "- I also don't see the true difference..."). Quoth "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <<>> in article : > Steuard Jensen schreef: > > In fact, why don't I illustrate the crucial "shadow" comments in > > two columns: one for my mental image, and one for my understanding > > of what you are advocating. > > My Picture: My Understanding of Your Picture: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > * "What is 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; > > and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it." > > > > _____ > > /.....\ > > /.......\ B > > |...B...| ... > > \......./ ..... > > \_____/ ....... > Are these maps or frontal views? I assume they're top views. That's right. I should have been more clear. > > In my column, the "shadow" is a cloudlike structure composed of > > some sort of "palpable darkness"; the Balrog's body is literally > > in the middle of it. In your column, my understanding is that the > > "shadow" is a literal shadow (presumably cast at this point by the > > "great fissure" filled with fire between the Balrog and the > > Fellowship); from the Fellowship's perspective, the Balrog's body > > would be seen in the middle of that dark background. > It's more complicated: the fire was also inside the balrog, so he > would be casting shadows all around him, not just behind him. So > first column is, graphically, more what I mean, even though there's > probably some Aristotelean difference between what you want to > convey and my understanding. Actually, at this point I'm not entirely certain that the Balrog was itself "on fire" yet (at least visibly so). Thus far it has only been described as a "dark form" (surrounded by a "shadow"); only as it leaps over the fissure do we read that "Its streaming mane kindled". And only when it reaches the bridge do we read that "Fire came from its nostrils." Later, when we read "The fire in it seemed to die", that could suggest some more extensive and intrinsic "fire" (maybe similar to what Jackson portrayed in the movie), but it's not clear when that started. All we know is that it looked like a "dark form" when seen from a distance and compared to the light of the fissure. On another note, I'm not certain what sort of shadows the Balrog's internal fire would cast. It's a little odd to imagine a "light source" casting shadows at all! But I guess that the non-burning parts could block the light from some of the burning parts... at least if the burning parts were relatively limited. (I don't think that a frosted light bulb with opaque speckles painted on it would "cast shadows", for example.) Keep in mind that we have direct evidence of fire both in front of the Balrog (nostrils) and behind it (mane). That may leave room for shadows extending sideways (like wings!), but probably not a general all-directional shadow. In any case, given the "dark form" description, it seems certain that the firey fissure remained by far the dominant light source in the great hall even after the Balrog arrived. Thus, even if it were capable of casting its own shadows, I think they would have been entirely trivial compared to the fissure-induced shadows, as I drew on the right side above. (But I've just had another thought: the fissure was a long, continuous light source, not a single point. Thus, I don't think it would have caused the Balrog to cast any appreciable shadow at all! No more than a tree casts on an overcast day, anyway. Because of that, I can't see any way to interpret that first mention of "shadow" in a literal, "blocked light" way.) > > * "It came to the edge of the fire and the light faded as if a cloud > > had bent over it." > > > > _____ ^^^^^^^^^^???^^^^^^^^^^ > > ^^^^^^^^/.....\^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > ^^^^^^^/.......\^^^^^^^ B > > |...B...| ... > > \......./ ..... > > \_____/ ....... > > > > Here, the '^'s denote the firey fissure. In my column, the > > cloud-shaped "shadow" surrounding the Balrog has "bent over" the > > fissure, dimming the light. In your column, to be honest, I have > > no idea why the light dimmed. > Well, the flames roared up to greet it, how could they do that? Both > the shadows and the flames seem to respond to the Balrog, so I think > (and you will probably agree for the most part) that the Balrog had > a measure of control over them. I do agree, more or less. :) (I have toyed in the past with the thought that the fire was just intrinsically drawn to the Balrog, without it having to "control" it at all. But I don't think that holds up: it's even harder to explain why the fissure's fire would go out after the Balrog fell than it would be if the Balrog had conscious control over it.) So yes, I think that the Balrog probably "called" the flames up to him as he jumped, perhaps specifically so they could light his mane (and him in general?) on fire. > But this is why I really feel the movie-balrog is so close to > Tolkien's intent: the light dims at the moment the Balrog stops > moving. When he leaps, the flames roar up. It's like the fire is > connected to his movement. Interesting idea. I'm not sure if it fits the entire scene, though. First of all, be sure to remember that there are two fires in question here: those in the fissure and those in/on the Balrog itself. I see ("physically") that a Balrog like Jackson imagined it would be brighter when it was moving, but I don't see why the fissure's flames would follow suit. If the intensity of both sets of flames were associated with the Balrog's anger or aggression, I think that might make sense. Back to the question of the behavior of the fissure fire being linked to the Balrog's motion. The fissure seems to be generally constant in brightness before the Balrog arrives. When it does arrive, the light dims as soon as it pauses at the brink. When it leaps across, the flames roared up all around it. So far, so good. But then things get a little less correlated. The Balrog continued to "race towards" the Fellowship without pause, but the fires in the fissure must have died down from that "roaring up" state: the Orcs poured over the gangways across the fissure. When the Balrog halted after Boromir blew his horn, there is no mention of any fires dimming, whether in the fissure or in "the firey shadow" itself. Later, when the Balrog reached the bridge and "halted again", its shadow spread out like wings, but there's no mention of the fire dimming: in fact, it blows fire from its nostrils. Gandalf babbles for a while, and only after that does "the fire in it [seem] to die". The only remaining mention of the fires' behavior is when the lights go out after the Balrog falls into the chasm. In those later descriptions, I don't see much connection between the cycles of the Balrog's motion and of its fires' intensity at all. > And when the fire dims, naturally the shadow grows. I don't think there's actually any mention of shadows growing at this point. As a final comment in this section, I'd mention that in an unusual twist, the no-wing position gets to lay claim to the less figurative interpretation in this case. :) The no-wingers already have a "cloud-like" shadow in mind, so my picture above naturally fits Tolkien's description. Pro-wingers have to interpret Tolkien's mention of "a cloud [bending] over it" totally figuratively, as a fancy way of saying "the flames burned less intensely". (And it could be argued that those two types of dimming would look rather different, too, making Tolkien's description less appropriate in the pro-wing version.) > > * "The Balrog reached the bridge. ...and the shadow about it reached > > out like two vast wings." > > > > _____ > > /.....\ > > /------.......------\ > > |..........B..........| B > > \------.......------/ \---------^---------/ > > \_____/ > > In my column, the cloud-like "shadow" about the Balrog has reached out > > in a shape similar to two vast wings. In your column, two "true, > > tangible wings" have reached out from the Balrog; because it is now > > backlit (against the firey fissure), the wings look like a dark > > "shadow". (In this view, the word "shadow" that was first used to > > describe a normal shadow on the wall is now being used to describe a > > tangible object that is backlit.) > That or they are projected shadows, with the fire inside the balrog > as a light source. We don't really know how bright the Balrog's internal fires were, as I've mentioned above, but keep in mind that the fissure's fires were presumably lighting the hall as well as they ever had. Unless the Balrog has become really bright, any shadows cast by its own light would be at least partly washed out by that background illumination. > I don't know, and judging from the indirect way in which the Balrog > is described, I don't think the fellowship really knows at that > point either. Hmm. I think that the Fellowship would be able to tell the difference between shadows cast on the floor and walls and shadows blocking the light from the fissure, even if Tolkien's wording doesn't make it as clear to us. :) Whether they would be able to tell the difference between backlit physical wings and dark cloudy shadows shaped like wings is, I'll admit, an open question (though I suspect that difference would be fairly apparent, too: were the fires behind them dimmed as by a cloud or blocked as by a sheet of leather?). In any case, I'm dubious that shadows on the floor and walls would be called "two vast wings" no matter how wide they spread or how dark they were. This phrase strongly implies some three-dimensional extent. > The wings did not necessarily have to be backlit. The text does not > say where the light is coming from. it could be the mane on its > back, but that's just a guess. If there were tangible wings and there were any light falling on them from the front, they wouldn't really look like shadows at all. (That may limit which parts of the Balrog emitted much light in the pro-wing picture, though we already know that its nostrils were occasionally bright. I don't know if that's a problem.) To look like shadows, all the light would have to be coming from behind; I'll agree that we don't know whether it's the fissure or the mane or some other back-of-Balrog fire that would be making them look that way. > > * "The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped > > forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a > > great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall" > > > > _______ > > /.......\ > > /--------.........--------\ > > |.............B.............| B > > \--------.........--------/ \------------^------------/ > > \_______/ > > > > In my column, the "shadow" (or "darkness") about the Balrog has grown > > larger: in particular, the "wings" of the shadowy "cloud" have now > > spread from wall to wall. In your column, the tangible wings have > > spread from wall to wall. (I guess with your reading, "the darkness > > grew" is taken as a natural consequence of "the fire in it seemed to > > die", although that doesn't seem to fit with the conjunction "but".) > The word 'but' makes sense if you look at it from the viewpoint of a > lonely figure standing in front of the Balrog. Both the fire and the > shadow are threatening... If one dies, that's good, but as a > consequence the other grows, so from that viewpoint the 'but' makes > perfect sense. Very good point. :) Thanks for the clarification. > > * "From out of the shadow a red sword leaped flaming." > > > > _____/_ / > > /..../..\ / > > /--------.....|...--------\ | > > |.............B.............| B > > \--------.........--------/ \------------^------------/ > > \_______/ > > > > Here, the extra '/' characters denote the sword. In my column, the > > sword has literally emerged "from out of the shadow." In your column, > > the sword has emerged from the darkness caused by the backlit wings > > blocking the light. (So either the word "shadow" is back to referring > > to a normal "blocked light" shadow again, or the phrase "out of the > > shadow" here just means that the sword has come forward relative to > > the indistinct backlit physical form of the Balrog... though a bright > > sword "like a stabbing tongue of fire" would have trouble getting lost > > in the darkness anyway.) > We already know that the sword was in the Balrog's hand, and this > hand was never indicated to merge with the shadow, or in any way > lose its shape. I think it's logical to assume that the hand could > not be seen. Why? It was described explicitly earlier in the scene (and the Balrog was already across the fissure, so presumably the lighting of the hand didn't change much in between). Or are you saying that you think the mention of the Balrog's hands was just a guess on the Fellowship's part? > > * "With a terrible cry the Balrog fell forward, and its shadow plunged > > down and vanished." > > > > ============___============ =========================== > > ========___/...\___======== =========================== > > =======/.._..b.._..\======= ==========___b___========== > > ======|../ \___/ \..|====== ===== \--/ \--/ ===== > > \/ \/ > > > > Here, the '='s denote the chasm (or at least, the Balrog's edge of > > it), and the 'b' denotes the Balrog's distant falling body. In my > > column, the cloudlike "shadow" is being pulled down into the darkness > > along with the Balrog... > > In your column, I'm honestly not sure which "shadow" the text would be > > referring to: as the Balrog and its wings fall into the dark chasm, > > there's no longer anything blocking the light (the "normal" shadow) > > nor is there really much backlighting (which made the wings look like > > a "shadow"). > I really don't see why the Balrog could not be a dark shape in both cases, > as he continually is described. But it sounds here like the Balrog fell _and_ its shadow plunged down: they're described separately. My understanding of your claim is that the wings looked like "shadows" against the fire behind them. But if they were visible at all as the Balrog fell into the lightless chasm it would be only because light was reflecting off of them: the very opposite of a shadow. So if "[the Balrog's] shadow plunged down and vanished", what "shadow" was being discussed? I guess it could still mean the tangible wings, but I'm just saying that the justification for calling them "shadows" is now totally gone. > It's a bit silly to make up 'something blocking the light' when the > creature is falling into a dark chasm. I agree... but as I understand it, that's the only way to justify calling tangible wings a "shadow" as they plunge down into darkness. (If the "shadow" is just an effect of the light and there is no longer any light, why mention it at all?) I think that's unreasonable, which is one reason that I don't like the "tangible wings" idea. (And as for the possibility that they could still look like a shadow blocking the Balrog's own fire, I would point out that at least some of that fire were on both sides, which would tend to actively illuminate the wings just as much as it would make them look like "shadows".) If instead "shadow" is being used "cloud of tangible darkness", then we don't need to worry about what light is coming from where or justify the continued use of the term at all. > Perhaps you don't think that Tolkien would refer to the dark outline > of a person as a 'shadow', but I really think that is a possibility > that should be taken into account. Oh, I'd never claim that! Tolkien explicitly refered to dark outlines of things as "shadows": consider "Fog on the Barrow Downs", where Frodo "looked up, in time to see a tall dark figure like a shadow against the stars." But note the "against the stars": it's only a "shadow" if the dark form is blocking something that _is_ visible. That's exactly why I've been describing your concept (as I understand it) as "backlighting": the Balrog's shape looked like a "shadow" against the light from the fissure of fire just as the Barrow-wight looked like a "shadow" again the light of the stars. Tolkien used similar language in "A Knife in the Dark": "they felt, rather than saw, a shadow rise, one shadow or more than one. They strained their eyes, nd the shadows seemed to grow. Soon there could be no doubt: three or four tall black figures were standing there... So black were they that they seemed like black holes in the deep shade behind them." Again, these were "shadows" because they were darker than the "deep shade" behind them (and they were much harder to see because the background was so dark itself). So, yeah, I've been taking that possibility into account all along... or trying to, at least. :) > > ...have I given a reasonably accurate representation of your > > mental image of what this passage is describing? > What's mostly wrong with it is that I think the Balrog looked like a > shadow because it carried bright fire in a dark place, like a > soldier with a torch on his gun. Depending on exactly what kind of light the soldier had, I would think that he would either be illuminated by the light (in which case he wouldn't look like a shadow, but like a soldier) or he would be totally unilluminated by it (in which case he would be downright invisible... unless he appeared as a darker figure against a background with a little ambient light, just as the Nazgul did at Weathertop). > > ...have my illustrations helped you to understand why I think my > > "amorphous cloudlike shadow-stuff" reading is consistent with the > > text? > Only if you think a 'shadow' must refer to something outside a > being, not the dark outline of the being itself. I don't know quite how you mean this. In this scene in particular, the first "shadow" mentioned is explicitly stated to be larger than the dark outline of "the being itself" (or at least, of its tangible body). Thus, I think there's good reason to think that references to the "shadow" in this specific scene do not refer to the outline of the Balrog's tangible body. Nevertheless, I have also tried to describe and illustrate the alternate possibility that you have advocated, in which the "shadow" is often exactly the sort of "dark outline" that you describe here. (I even gave examples above of places where Tolkien used that description.) As I said, I didn't expect to convince you that you were wrong. :) I hoped mostly to convince you that I could conceivably be right. :) (Mind you, I still think my explanation is more likely! But we probably differ on that assessment.) > I don't think the Balrog's sword grew out of its body when it > 'leaped out flaming', but I would allow any author the rhetorical > freedom to describe a large, dark being attacking a person as a > shadow out of which comes a sword. I'm not sure what you mean by "grew out of its body": that doesn't sound like an idea that either you or I have advocated in this discussion. My description would be more that the sword was thrust out from the palpable darkness enveloping the Balrog's tangible body (at which point it became brighter and more easily visible). Your explanation fits, too... though it wouldn't seem quite as natural if the sword was generating light on its own (as "flaming" could conceivably imply). > I find your explanation to be convoluted and not positively > confirmed by any piece of text. Much as I find yours, I guess. :) The only part of my interpretation of the scene that seems at all complicated to me is the initial identification of the "shadow" with an amorphous cloud of "palpable darkness". Once you've done that, everything else seems like a perfectly natural fit to the text. > The only time the text seems to speak of a cloud, it's in the form > of a comparison and looks more like a way to describe the way the > fire dies out. You read that as a description of "how" the fire dies out, I read it as a description of "why" the fire dies out. Both seem like valid readings. Personally, I suspect that a fire blocked by a cloud or by fog would look rather different than a fire that actually died down, so I don't think that reading this passage as a description works as well. > Much like the wings, in fact, but unlike the wings, the cloud is > never mentioned again. Naturally not, in my view: the next time it's mentioned, it has spread out from side to side in a shape reminiscent of wings. > There are several things you don't adequately explain. > - Why is the Balrog's own form, not its shadow, never specifically > named? It was certainly visible, since the 'shadow about it' could > be separated from the creature itself. That shadow took the shape of > wings. Well, parts of the Balrog's own form _are_ specifically named. It was "of man-shape maybe", it had two hands, it had nostrils, it had a mane, it had feet. If you're looking for more details that that, I can only say that I agree with much of your mental image: the darkness made details hard to see, especially compared to parts of the Balrog that were lit with their own fire. But I'd go even further: the details of the Balrog's form were hard to make out in part because it was surrounded by a cloud of "palpable darkness", which like a thick fog would naturally make things inside it less distinct. > - If only the Balrog's shadow fell down, the monster itself was > presumably still lying prone on the bridge? Why is only told what > happened to its shadowy bit? Now you're just being silly. :) I refer you back to my illustration of this scene (where as I said, "the 'b' denotes the Balrog's distant falling body"), and to the full passage in question: "With a terrible cry the Balrog fell forward, and its shadow plunged down and vanished. But even as it fell it swung its whip, and the thongs lashed and curled about the wizard's knees, dragging him to the brink." The Balrog "fell forward", and there was no bridge left beneath it to fall upon. Moreover, given that the shadow was always described as being more or less centered on the Balrog, it would be a reasonable inference that they plunged down together. (And as for why the vanishing "shadow" is described last, I illustrated one guess about what its falling looked like above, suggesting that maybe it "flowed" down into the chasm as the Balrog "pulled" it down. But that's just one idea.) It's hard for me to see how what I've said would have given you the impression that I believed the silly scenario that you've described here. > - In that next sentence, Tolkien states that the shadow 'swung its > whip'. 'Its' can only refer to the shadow mentioned in the previous > sentence. Huh? Look at that passage again. The word "its" was used twice: once in "its shadow" and once in "its whip". What is "it"? Well, "it fell". And what "fell"? "The Balrog fell". The word "it" in this passage always refers to the Balrog, not to its shadow. > Following your reasoning, this must have meant that the shadow was > not only able to take on the shape of wings, it could also grasp > objects. Do you really believe this? No, I do not believe that the Balrog's "shadow" could grasp objects. As mentioned aboe, you seem to have misread this passage. > - If the shadow could also be referring to the Balrog's tangible > body, but barely visible, then why would the wings that he spreads > from wall to wall not be part of that? First, as mentioned above, the earliest mention of the "shadow" was explicitly distinct from the Balrog's tangible body. However, I _thought_ that my illustrations of your interpretation (in the right hand column) showed exactly what you are describing here: the Balrog's tangible body including tangible wings as a dark (but fire-laced) shadow against the light. Mind you, I _do_ think it's unnecessarily complicated for the word "shadow" to refer to two different things associated with the Balrog in the same scene. But as I said, I'll grant you that it's possible. > - I also don't see the true difference in your version between the > third and the fourth drawing you made. In the fourth, the > shadow-wings were reaching from wall to wall, but what were they > projected on in the third sketch? The air, or the ceiling? It is > very difficult to think of a shadow shaped like two wings that does > not reach the walls to the sides of the Balrog, and even more > difficult to think of such shadows reaching out. They would have had > to be on the ceilingor the floor, since there was no other > surface. My point is this: if the Balrog spread its wing-like > shadows rather than its actual wings, then they were already from > wall to wall, since shadows don't exist in thin air. And now I'm extremely concerned that you've completely misunderstood my drawings and my entire point. Oh dear. In my mental picture of the Balrog, the one I've tried to describe above, the "shadow" is always essentially the same thing: a cloud of "palpable darkness" floating in the air around the Balrog's tangible body. In absolutely no case do I interpret a "shadow" associated with the Balrog as a dark area on the wall or floor where the light has been blocked. Thus, there is no sense in which the "shadow-wings" were "projected on" anything. They were just that same cloud of "palpable darkness" suspended in the air, but now spreading out from side to side in three dimensions much as a pair of tangible wings would have. The "cloud" didn't spread all at once, so that's the difference between the third and fourth sketch in both columns: in the fourth, the "wings" (whether made of tangible bone and flesh or of "palpable darkness") have finally reached their full extent. I cannot emphasize this enough: in my interpretation of this scene where the "shadow" is a cloud of "palpable darkness", the "shadow" exists ONLY "in thin air"! :) If you have honestly misunderstood this point throughout this entire discussion, I apologize for being unclear, and I would _really_ appreciate it if you could explain what in all that I've said gave you the wrong impression. > - The moment the Balrog rises up, Tolkien describes him as having > wings. Why does he not use the same words if they are the same > shadows? You may have to explain what you mean here a little more, if I turn out to have misunderstood. My understanding of why Tolkien used the words he did is that the phrase "and its shadow like wings was spread from wall to wall" is clumsier and less vivid than "and its wings were spread from wall to wall". To be honest, I doubt that he realized that anyone would be confused about which "wings" he was talking about: after all, he had only introduced one pair of "wings", and that was just two paragraphs earlier. > Do you think Gandalf sees wings in the air or projected on the > ceiling and the walls? Absolutely, emphatically, "wings" in the air, not projected. That pretty much covers it, at least for now. :) I'll look forward to your reply. Steuard Jensen