<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Animated Skeleton
Posts: 32</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Argument.
I must say, Mister Underhill, I find your arguments to be wonderfully presented! You've all but convinced me. I think the only reason I'm not ready to say Balrogs had wings (and could thus fly, since I think the ornamental wings idea is ridiculous) is that I think Tolkien may never have chosen a solid mold for all or any of his Balrogs.
Now, my addition to this debate is for those of you who believe that the FotR has evidence enough, and that the wording itself makes this an open and shut case. This quote I believe to be pertinent: <blockquote>
Quote:<hr> But Joe, taking it up carefully with both hands, like a bird's nest with eggs in it, wouldn't hear of parting with that piece of property, and persisted in standing talking over it in a most uncomfortable way.<hr></blockquote>
This is taken from Dickens'
Great Expectations, as some of you may have recognized. Here, Joe holds his hat
like a bird's nest. Four paragraphs later (and I promise, he's still holding a hat):<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> All this time (still with both hands taking great care of the bird's nest), Joe was rolling his eyes round and round the room, and round and round the flowered pattern on my dressing gown.<hr></blockquote>
Joe's hat is not a bird's nest. Despite the marvelous Dickens' seemingly apparent claim. In fact, when reading this, one doesn't even question whether Joe was, in fact, accustomed to wear a bird's nest in place of an actual hat.
I realize that this is not Tolkien, and this is not Balrogs, but I know that some people rely solely on the English used to form their opinion. I'm not saying Tolkien
couldn't have meant that the Balrog had outstretched, literal wings; I'm saying that he didn't
necessarily intend for that to be the gist.
</p>