The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

jallanite · 08-19-2001, 07:56 PM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 71</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

Aiwendil

Actually, we can keep the thousand Balrogs if we want to. One late note can be disregarded when so much more definite full late material is being disregarded. At the moment I'm just trying to see the implications if we try for seven Balrogs maximum, and it came out better than I thought it would (though I'd still feel more comfortable with at least a dozen.)

I don't see that Tolkien necessarily made all Balrogs much more powerful.

Durin's Bane may always have been more powerful than some, and apparently a sorcerer to boot as he used a counter-spell against Gandalf's shutting-spell. Gothmog might have been even more powerful, but Ecthelion kills it by tripping it and himself into a well where both died. Water could quite be a weakness to a fire spirit. Durin's Bane also had its fire quenched by water until it finally got into the open again and could flame on. In a well full of water it also could possibly have drowned.

CT's opinion about later Balrogs being more powerful gives no citations. The only Balrogs we ever see outside of undetailed event summaries are those at the battle of Gondolin, and one powerful Balrog in Moria. That's not really enough to draw conclusions from.

For the War which results in the destruction of Angband, only the Annals of Aman specifically mentions Balrogs in the passage about the destruction of the Host of Balrogs which I cited in my first post here, the one to which JRRT attached that bothersome note about seven. If you want to stick to seven strictly that vivid passage of the withering would probably have to go, unless you wish to imagine a re-embodiment, not explicitly mentioned.

Tolkien's story there seems to be that most of the Balrogs came to Morgoth's aid and "died" then, but some few were left behind in the depths of Thangorodrim, perhaps trapped there, perhaps wounded, perhaps just being smart and hiding. Some or all of these later came to Morgoth's rescue on his return.

But I agree, even dropping that passage doesn't get rid of the problem. It's hard to imagine, just because it was not mentioned, that no Balrogs were destroyed in that war. But sometimes the best thing you can do with a problem is admit you don't know the answer.

Which brings me to the Balrogs with wings. Or rather, Balrogs who can fly, as there are some who support winged Balrogs but not flying Balrogs. If Balrogs could fly then the question arises why they did not fly over the wall of Gondolin, perch on high towers, and rain down their firey darts. And again, why did the eagles not notice Sauron's raid which must have gone right by their eyries? Thorondor was so clear about the value of his protection of Gondolin in "The Wanderings of Húrin", and then lets an entire army of Orks, Balrogs, and dragons cross in.

JRRT could have solved these problems easily, the same as any writer of fan fiction can, by a little addition or a little rewriting. That Balrogs ride on the new fire-drakes is one of the givens of the old FG, and is used throughout. Eg. Ecthelion is struck down by a Balrog's whip, but Tuor hews off a foot of the dragon on which it rides. I'd rather not make changes in Tolkien's text because some Balrogs might possibly be able to fly, though no-one has ever definitely caught one doing it.

I agree about the problem with "two". My difficulty was that we have only six Balrogs at the most left alive. If we say "a number" what number could that be? Since this is the smaller part of the Balrog troop, the number must be either two or one. If you know there can only by six Balrogs at the most, then saying "a number" here just sounds wrong. I also want a word or phrase more imprecise than "two" but which could easily mean "two". I couldn't and can't think of any that satisfy me. The "lesser part of them"? Perhaps "a smaller part of them"? "A couple of them"?

Bob W,

Revelations 8:12<blockquote>Quote:<hr> The fourth angel sounded, and one third of the sun was struck, and one third of the moon, and one third of the stars; so that one third of them would be darkened, and the day wouldn't shine for one third of it, and the night in the same way. <hr></blockquote>Tolkien generally disliked allegory and did not much use it, but occasionally does. If you see an allegory pertinent to the number of Balrogs or something else in this thread you think might be explained by this text then explicate it for us. Please don't rudely say it's the Bible. That's not what Aiwendil was asking. He was asking its pertinence.

I also do not know of any reference distinguishing between types of Balrogs. The note indicating three or at the most seven simply indicates Balrogs. If there is such a reference, please point it out to us, or please point out the references from which you deduce this conclusion.

No-one here ever claimed Balrogs were machines.

No-one here ever claimed Balrogs were "created" by Melkor, unless speaking specifically of texts before the latest accounts for some other reason.

If Úmaiar does not mean something like evil Maiar, then explain what it does mean. If an eäla cannot be an Ainu or Maia or Úmaia or Vala, then explain why not. My reading of the text in which it occurs*** I believe the only such text*** is that it would refer to all Ainur, except possibly those that have become permanently incarnant. Perhaps their eälar actually become fëar at that stage. Tolkien never uses the term eäla elsewhere in published writings so who can say. Possibly there are also spirits created as eälar inside Eä who are not Ainur and also not incarnates.

Whether this passage is later or earlier than the one which appears in the published Valaquenta and defines the Balrogs as originally Maiar is an open question. But it probably doesn't matter, since Maiar were, at least in origin, eälar, that is, disincarnate spirits. What Tolkien has changed in these latest writings is the idea that Melkor himself created the Balrogs.

If you want to put forward an hypothesis on something, please give your citations and your reasoning, not implications that we haven't done research ourselves because we haven't come up with the same answer you have, an answer you have not yet provided.

I still can't see what you are getting at.

</p>

08-19-2001, 07:56 PM	#18
jallanite Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 479	<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator Posts: 71</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE> Re: Bye Bye Balrogs Aiwendil Actually, we can keep the thousand Balrogs if we want to. One late note can be disregarded when so much more definite full late material is being disregarded. At the moment I'm just trying to see the implications if we try for seven Balrogs maximum, and it came out better than I thought it would (though I'd still feel more comfortable with at least a dozen.) I don't see that Tolkien necessarily made all Balrogs much more powerful. Durin's Bane may always have been more powerful than some, and apparently a sorcerer to boot as he used a counter-spell against Gandalf's shutting-spell. Gothmog might have been even more powerful, but Ecthelion kills it by tripping it and himself into a well where both died. Water could quite be a weakness to a fire spirit. Durin's Bane also had its fire quenched by water until it finally got into the open again and could flame on. In a well full of water it also could possibly have drowned. CT's opinion about later Balrogs being more powerful gives no citations. The only Balrogs we ever see outside of undetailed event summaries are those at the battle of Gondolin, and one powerful Balrog in Moria. That's not really enough to draw conclusions from. For the War which results in the destruction of Angband, only the Annals of Aman specifically mentions Balrogs in the passage about the destruction of the Host of Balrogs which I cited in my first post here, the one to which JRRT attached that bothersome note about seven. If you want to stick to seven strictly that vivid passage of the withering would probably have to go, unless you wish to imagine a re-embodiment, not explicitly mentioned. Tolkien's story there seems to be that most of the Balrogs came to Morgoth's aid and "died" then, but some few were left behind in the depths of Thangorodrim, perhaps trapped there, perhaps wounded, perhaps just being smart and hiding. Some or all of these later came to Morgoth's rescue on his return. But I agree, even dropping that passage doesn't get rid of the problem. It's hard to imagine, just because it was not mentioned, that no Balrogs were destroyed in that war. But sometimes the best thing you can do with a problem is admit you don't know the answer. Which brings me to the Balrogs with wings. Or rather, Balrogs who can fly, as there are some who support winged Balrogs but not flying Balrogs. If Balrogs could fly then the question arises why they did not fly over the wall of Gondolin, perch on high towers, and rain down their firey darts. And again, why did the eagles not notice Sauron's raid which must have gone right by their eyries? Thorondor was so clear about the value of his protection of Gondolin in "The Wanderings of Húrin", and then lets an entire army of Orks, Balrogs, and dragons cross in. JRRT could have solved these problems easily, the same as any writer of fan fiction can, by a little addition or a little rewriting. That Balrogs ride on the new fire-drakes is one of the givens of the old FG, and is used throughout. Eg. Ecthelion is struck down by a Balrog's whip, but Tuor hews off a foot of the dragon on which it rides. I'd rather not make changes in Tolkien's text because some Balrogs might possibly be able to fly, though no-one has ever definitely caught one doing it. I agree about the problem with "two". My difficulty was that we have only six Balrogs at the most left alive. If we say "a number" what number could that be? Since this is the smaller part of the Balrog troop, the number must be either two or one. If you know there can only by six Balrogs at the most, then saying "a number" here just sounds wrong. I also want a word or phrase more imprecise than "two" but which could easily mean "two". I couldn't and can't think of any that satisfy me. The "lesser part of them"? Perhaps "a smaller part of them"? "A couple of them"? Bob W, Revelations 8:12<blockquote>*Quote:<hr> The fourth angel sounded, and one third of the sun was struck, and one third of the moon, and one third of the stars; so that one third of them would be darkened, and the day wouldn't shine for one third of it, and the night in the same way. <hr></blockquote>Tolkien generally disliked allegory and did not much use it, but occasionally does. If you see an allegory pertinent to the number of Balrogs or something else in this thread you think might be explained by this text then explicate it for us. Please don't rudely say it's the Bible. That's not what Aiwendil was asking. He was asking its pertinence. I also do not know of any* reference distinguishing between types of Balrogs. The note indicating three or at the most seven simply indicates Balrogs. If there is such a reference, please point it out to us, or please point out the references from which you deduce this conclusion. No-one here ever claimed Balrogs were machines. No-one here ever claimed Balrogs were "created" by Melkor, unless speaking specifically of texts before the latest accounts for some other reason. If Úmaiar does not mean something like evil Maiar, then explain what it does mean. If an eäla cannot be an Ainu or Maia or Úmaia or Vala, then explain why not. My reading of the text in which it occurs*** I believe the only such text*** is that it would refer to all Ainur, except possibly those that have become permanently incarnant. Perhaps their eälar actually become fëar at that stage. Tolkien never uses the term eäla elsewhere in published writings so who can say. Possibly there are also spirits created as eälar inside Eä who are not Ainur and also not incarnates. Whether this passage is later or earlier than the one which appears in the published Valaquenta and defines the Balrogs as originally Maiar is an open question. But it probably doesn't matter, since Maiar were, at least in origin, eälar, that is, disincarnate spirits. What Tolkien has changed in these latest writings is the idea that Melkor himself created the Balrogs. If you want to put forward an hypothesis on something, please give your citations and your reasoning, not implications that we haven't done research ourselves because we haven't come up with the same answer you have, an answer you have not yet provided. I still can't see what you are getting at. </p>