* * Revised Fall of Gondolin pt.4 -- >end [the remaining sections] * * - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Aiwendil · 08-04-2003, 08:25 AM

FG-B-04: Ah. I understand. Good.

FG-B-03.05: I still don't understand a need for the change. In the previous paragraph, we have Rog kill a Balrog. In this paragraph, they continue to fight against other Balrogs until they are penned and destroyed. I don't think the Balrogs here have anything to do with the Balrog in the previous paragraph.

Of course, if we delete Rog's slaying of a Balrog, both paragraphs will have to change, though I'm not quite sure exactly how.

FG-B-06.05a: I agree that the reference to Tuor's axe refers to its use against Balrogs. But I don't see any problem with this. The problem is only that it refers to five Balrogs being slain. My revisions were intended to keep Tuor's attack with Dramborleg but eliminate the deaths of the Balrogs.

FG-B-06.05b: I would still prefer to retain the plural. There's no reason that Ecthelion couldn't have been fighting several Balrogs at this point (it's not as though he's killing several Balrogs). But I'll wait to hear from Lindil and anyone else. I'm assuming that the original "Balrog's" was here a mistake for "Balrogs", because otherwise it's already singular.

I am rather of the opinion that the "dragon of fire" refers to the previously mentioned drake, not to the Balrog. We have never seen "dragon" used for a Balrog as far as I know. In any case, I think "that" should stand.

Concerning Rog: We are then agreed in principle. I am now of the opinion that we must not explicitly say that Rog killed a Balrog. Ideally, we would keep the attack of Rog against the Balrogs (or possibly against a Balrog) and keep its success, but eliminate a statement to the effect that the Balrog was killed, leaving the possibility that it was simply driven back. I should have done something like this in my initial Balrog revision. However, I can at the moment see no good way of doing this without inserting fabricated text.

08-04-2003, 08:25 AM	#11
Aiwendil Late Istar Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,224	FG-B-04: Ah. I understand. Good. FG-B-03.05: I still don't understand a need for the change. In the previous paragraph, we have Rog kill a Balrog. In this paragraph, they continue to fight against other Balrogs until they are penned and destroyed. I don't think the Balrogs here have anything to do with the Balrog in the previous paragraph. Of course, if we delete Rog's slaying of a Balrog, both paragraphs will have to change, though I'm not quite sure exactly how. FG-B-06.05a: I agree that the reference to Tuor's axe refers to its use against Balrogs. But I don't see any problem with this. The problem is only that it refers to five Balrogs being slain. My revisions were intended to keep Tuor's attack with Dramborleg but eliminate the deaths of the Balrogs. FG-B-06.05b: I would still prefer to retain the plural. There's no reason that Ecthelion couldn't have been fighting several Balrogs at this point (it's not as though he's killing several Balrogs). But I'll wait to hear from Lindil and anyone else. I'm assuming that the original "Balrog's" was here a mistake for "Balrogs", because otherwise it's already singular. I am rather of the opinion that the "dragon of fire" refers to the previously mentioned drake, not to the Balrog. We have never seen "dragon" used for a Balrog as far as I know. In any case, I think "that" should stand. Concerning Rog: We are then agreed in principle. I am now of the opinion that we must not explicitly say that Rog killed a Balrog. Ideally, we would keep the attack of Rog against the Balrogs (or possibly against a Balrog) and keep its success, but eliminate a statement to the effect that the Balrog was killed, leaving the possibility that it was simply driven back. I should have done something like this in my initial Balrog revision. However, I can at the moment see no good way of doing this without inserting fabricated text.