I must say that I disagree with Michael Martinezes arguement in its entirety. Not only does most of it's foundation lie in conjecture but certain basic elements are mischaracterized from the beginning. Have not you noticed that he makes very few citations and has few relevant sources?
For example: saying that the the simile used to describe the Balrog 'great shadow' sets the stage for something of parallel structure to that in the Bridge is erroneous on its face:
'great shadow' is a simile for the Balrog
THEN:
the word 'shadow' is used to describe something about that the Balrog
the use of the term is clearly distinguished(as opposed to the passage in question and the passages in my quotes) and as such a valid counter-example has not been produced.
No wonder Mr. Martinez chose not to produce any quotes [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]
Even Further I think his unwarrented dogmatism is quite offputting. In my formal presentation I maintain throughout that this is my opinion I simply, provide a great deal of evidence to show why exactly it is.
The fact is there is NO answer and unless CT publishes something and unforeseen there will never be one. BUT the eivdence does point in one direction I feel it points toward mine:
On Balrogs...
I am not so arrogant as to think that my supposition even when based on what I see to be a great deal of evidence in my favor as fact
[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: Fingolfin of the Noldor ]