And why did you omit the obvious and essential piece of data which any logical, naturally reading human being would agree plays a major part in describing the Balrog?Stormcrow wrote:
Here's everything we know about what the balrog looked like:
......
""It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall..."
See, now why did you have to go there and suggest I miss out on a lot of meaning? I'm pretty, savvy, thanks very much. I think things should be taken at face value until or unless some cue suggests to me otherwise. In real life there are plenty of such cues. I could turn this around and say "how do you function in society when everything becomes a metaphor?" but I won't.Stormcrow wrote: You must miss out on a lot of meaning, then. Anyway I HAVE shown you that; you just don't accept it.
But the whole point is that you have not shown your argument. There are a couple paragraphs in between the simile of "...like great wings" and the literal narrative "..wings were spread from wall to wall". I still don't understand why the no-wing camp hones in on that specific part to support its argument, and plays inheritance leapfrog with the application of the simile. What's being done is not a careful reading: it's Lawyering.
-do you look for metaphor or alternate meaning in any of the other words of that sentence? Step or bridge, 'drew' or walls? No; every other part of that sentence can be taken literally and without looking for double meaning, but because Tolkien used the word "wings" therein and also used the word "wings" several paragraphs earlier in constructing a simile, then the conclusion must be that this was also a literary device? Can you not see how that logic would twist the entire 800 page story into a meaningless black hole of amputated literary devices if we applied it universally? I guess this is really the crux of my disbelief and question: How and when does the 'no-wing camp' choose to decide when something is a metaphor/simile/analaogy, etc. rather than to be taken literally?
To be successful, though metaphor requires exaggeration in order to self-identify as such. "All the world's a stage" is obvious metaphor. If it's not clear that your statement is metaphor, you haven't done your job as an author. Since Tolkien was no amateur writer or academic concerning language, I have to believe he knew this. One could make an appearl to the subtlety of metaphor, here, I suppose, but its just as likely that the statement was meant as literal. Given the preponderance of other cues that Tolkien gives us regarding Balrogs, both in his literature and by understanding his faith and what Balrogs were meant to symbolize in his mythology, one begins to see a very obvious picture regarding wings, (if not flight).But that's exactly what metaphor is: use of one word to mean another without making it an explicit comparison. As soon as you have a "trigger," it's a simile, not a metaphor.
“Swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum…" (what kind of speed, you ask? Winged speed. Why? Because they had wings. Again, I'm not saying this is THE Correct interpretation...but it is the most natural and obvious one. And what did they do with that winged speed? They passed over Hithlum. Passed over...Again, the allusion to the Hebrew holiday is not missed here; passing over kind of suggestive of God's angels or spirit "flying over" the righteous Jewish houses so as to not slay the firstborn.You said this twice. I am completely unaware of any such suggestions. Care to quote some?
"Thus [the dwarves] roused from sleep a thing of terror that, flying from Thangorodrim, had lain hidden at the foundations of the earth since the coming of the Host of the West: a Balrog of Morgoth." Is it possible that the Balrog "flew from Thangorodrim" in the same way that Gandalf told the Fellowship "Fly [you fools]!" Yes, very possible. When taken in context with everything else, you cannot deny there is a constant direct or indirect reference to flight and wings when it comes to Balrogs. This could be purely happenstance on the part of the Professor, or we could just submit to reading it with the most natural, obvious, and simple form of interpretation.
The balrog is not made of shadow; it is surrounded by it. Its man-like (maybe) form is visible inside the shadow.
I disagree; it's about the Balrog having a form, to include appendages, homo-corporeal with the rest of its form, whatever "stuff" that form happens to be made of. In other words, IF the Balrog was made of shadow and flame, and it's wings were thus shown to be made of shadow and/or flame, would you then declare that the Balrog did not have wings because they weren't made of physical flesh and bone and sinew? Given your own bullets above, regarding the description of the Balrog, you even indicate it is "predominantly shadow"...formed into the shape of a man perhaps, but mostly shadow....the "balrogs have wings" argument is about the balrog having physical, actual wings.
Well in my opinion that's not what's being done. Rather, looking for strained metaphors and similies in several-paragraphs-removed antecedents in order to subvert the most natural, obvious, and simple reading of the text in order to draw strained conclusions.A close, careful reading is not over-scrutinizing.
My suspicion is that this done as a form of academic circumcision; it's a self-imposed mark, meant to separate the true Tolkien-philes from the ignorant mass-consumers so that they have a badge of esoteric honor. A secret hand-shake if you will, by which to identify those they think truly worthy of having an opinion on Tolkien.
