The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

obloquy · 08-26-2001, 01:44 PM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haunting Spirit
Posts: 62</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

We know that the number of balrogs was reduced and they became much more powerful later, but there is nothing specifically said about a reduction in stature.

Because I don't have the volume you're referring to, I can't form an argument based on the text you cite. However, I wouldn't personally rely on a rejected draft for information. It can give us an idea in some cases, but remember: originally Aragorn was a booted hobbit named Trotter. Perhaps earliest conceptions of the "Bridge..." chapter didn't involve a balrog at all.

So I am going to politely disagree with you. <img src=smile.gif ALT="

">

Edit: Also, from the pro-wings standpoint (an opinion that I would not dare call less respectable than my own), the Balrog would have to be huge. To sum up a section of the essay I pointed to, since the Bridge spanned what was described as a "chasm", it must be longer than it was wide, because a "chasm" is defined as being "narrow". We know from the text that the width was fifty feet. So to be considered "narrow", we would have a length of no less (says the essay, and I agree) than one hundred feet. A pro-wings position demands that the 'wings spread from wall to wall' passage be taken literally, which gives the Balrog a wingspan of no less than one hundred feet. That simply would not work on a being of man-size.

</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000090>obloquy</A> at: 8/26/01 3:56:53 pm

08-26-2001, 01:44 PM	#24
obloquy Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: WA Posts: 941	<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haunting Spirit Posts: 62</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE> Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs We know that the number of balrogs was reduced and they became much more powerful later, but there is nothing specifically said about a reduction in stature. Because I don't have the volume you're referring to, I can't form an argument based on the text you cite. However, I wouldn't personally rely on a rejected draft for information. It can give us an idea in some cases, but remember: originally Aragorn was a booted hobbit named Trotter. Perhaps earliest conceptions of the "Bridge..." chapter didn't involve a balrog at all. So I am going to politely disagree with you. <img src=smile.gif ALT=""> Edit: Also, from the pro-wings standpoint (an opinion that I would not dare call less respectable than my own), the Balrog would have to be huge. To sum up a section of the essay I pointed to, since the Bridge spanned what was described as a "chasm", it must be longer than it was wide, because a "chasm" is defined as being "narrow". We know from the text that the width was fifty feet. So to be considered "narrow", we would have a length of no less (says the essay, and I agree) than one hundred feet. A pro-wings position demands that the 'wings spread from wall to wall' passage be taken literally, which gives the Balrog a wingspan of no less than one hundred feet. That simply would not work on a being of man-size. </p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000090>obloquy</A> at: 8/26/01 3:56:53 pm