XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien
From: briancanada71@yahoo.com
On 6/11/2014 10:26 AM, Sandman wrote:
> In article , No One In Particular wrote:
>
>
>
> Well, not that I could say from memory alone, but would the description of
> Smaug, also a featherless flying creature not also lend itself to be
> interpreted as a Pterodactylus if so? I mean, I have no problem you seeing
> a Pterodactylus in your inner mind when reading the text, but the passage
> is so sparse on details so you really couldn't make a firm conclusion based
> on it, it was just the image that came into your mind.
>
> Of course, Smaug is a dragon and the inner eye already have somewhat of an
> idea just how a dragon is supposed to look when reading about him, but what
> if you didn't? I'm sure if he was "Smaug the Fellbeast" or "Smaug the
> Hellwing" and you read the description of it, it is equally as fitting to a
> huge Pterodactylus as well - for your inner eye at least.
>
> That said, reading the above passage I have to say that Pterodactylus is
> firmly ruled out. :)
>
>
Agreed about that, at least; the passage is quite ambiguous. However,
Smaug was never in doubt. My mental image of him, no doubt, was
influenced by the book art and the Rankin Bass film; but Ole Smokey was
always a dragon. The Nazgūl's ride, on the other hand, could be a number
of things.
Based on Tolkien's letter, basically you can call it whatever your heart
desires. I like Pterodactyl. Or, if current fossil evidence be against
me, then mayhaps some long lost cousin of the breed, which has not been
seen in the fossil record yet.
Brian
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
