Okay, being of somewhat limited intelligence and attention span (and I'm not taking notes), I've lost track of what Kuruharan and Obloquy assert, whereas Thingol has laid his out pretty cleaerly (which I don't consider weird, just organized - I won't even tell you what I was doing before you beat me to it - it WAs weird [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] ) All that to say this: Balrogs are Tolkien's invention, plain and simple. Dragons are not. Do you think that Tolkien's dragons are actually different in nature than those found in received Indo-European tradition? A lot of the debate and research on this thread into his works seem to indicate this sentiment. I personally think that he accepted this tradition and may have found it necessary (maybe not) to devise a mechanism (techno-speech - yuck [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] ) for dragons' nature within Middle Earth. But I don't think so. Maybe we're finding angels on the ends of needles with this, eh? Yes, it's still great fun. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
Because I do think he accepted this tradition, I think ALL his dragons are worth discussing: Glaurung, Smaug, EVEN Chrysophylax.
And yes, we have got to think up some thread about Farmer Giles of Ham. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] But what? [img]smilies/confused.gif[/img]
[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]
|