XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien
From: steuard@slimy.com
In message , Troels Forchhammer
wrote:
> In message
> Sandman spoke these staves:
>> ...do the Balrogs have wings or not? :)
> Actually I cannot think of any pro-wingers among Tolkien scholars ...
Speaking as a more-or-less no-winger (though also as a leading
proponent of our old consensus statement on the issue that
acknowledges something wing-like being there), I'm glad to hear it!
> My impression is that the pro-wing reading is today fairly
> discredited as a likely representation of Tolkien's intention -- i.e.
> at the time of writing and publishing _The Lord of the Rings_,
> Tolkien intended the balrog in Moria as well as Balrogs in general to
> be without wings and to be incapable of flight (as in flying in the
> air like a bird, bat, or a Christian angel or demon).
I've felt that way for a long time, but (having snipped your
transcript) I'd be curious to know if there are more compelling
arguments to make that case today than there were during the Wing Wars
here years ago. If so, I'd *really* love to see them, but I suspect
not (unless they've been found in previously unpublished notes
somewhere, like the anti-Nazgul blades quotes were).
Reading through that transcript, it feels like a nice summary of what
I consider to be the convincing case for the no-wings side of the
debate. But I don't see anything there that would have come close to
convincing, say, Michael M. to change his mind. We made all of those
points and more, often in greater detail and with tighter logic, and
yet there were intelligent people who remained unconvinced. I could
probably rattle off the "standard parries" to each of those points
myself.
So I'm a little leery of saying "discredited" here. It seems like
"unpopular" would be a better fit.
Steuard Jensen
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
