Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

[Impaler00]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 11</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
I think Tom is Illuvatar (my opinion)

And I think Balrogs had Wings, for many reasons but one inparticular is on the Book of Lost Tales 1 cover it has Glaurung and two Balrogs behind him crouching, and they had Wings.

Hehe, I typed this up quickly because I need to go somewhere.

</p>

[Orald]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Shade of Carn Dûm
Posts: 492</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

Tolkien specifically stated that Tom wasn't Iluvatar, but if you thinks so, then good for you <img src=smile.gif ALT="">

And balrogs having wings can't be based on an artists depiction who has no real ties to Tolkien. I would believe that balrogs did have wings if Tolkien would have drawn a picture, but he didn't so I say they dont', someone else back me up here.

</p>

[The Barrow-Wight]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wraith of Angmar
Posts: 1829</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

Durelen is right that cover art done by an artist after JRRTs death (or before, even) cannot be used as proof for or against wings. You must turn to the text. If you relied on artists renditions, you'd soon believe that Legolas wears wigs or colors his hair, for he is seen with several shades of long tresses in the various pictures I have seen.

The Barrow-Wight (RKittle)
<font size="2">I usually haunt http://www.barrowdowns.comThe Barrow-Downs</a> and The Barrow-Downs http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgiMiddle-Earth Discussion Board</a>.</p>

[Impaler00]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 12</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

&quot;And I think Balrogs had Wings, for many reasons but one inparticular is on the Book of Lost Tales 1 cover it has Glaurung and two Balrogs behind him crouching, and they had Wings.&quot;

I said 'FOR MANY REASONS BUT ONE INPARTICULAR' not just that one but many, and I was in a hurry so I did not name them.

</p>

[Mithadan]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Spirit of Mist
Posts: 588</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

S'ok I think they have wings too.

--Mithadan--
"The Silmarils with living light
were kindled clear, and waxing bright
shone like stars that in the North
above the reek of earth leap forth." </p>

[The Barrow-Wight]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wraith of Angmar
Posts: 1834</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

I am still undecided on the wings issue though I lean heavliy no-wing, but since you only specified the one 'proof' its all I could comment on.

The Barrow-Wight (RKittle)
<font size="2">I usually haunt http://www.barrowdowns.comThe Barrow-Downs</a> and The Barrow-Downs http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgiMiddle-Earth Discussion Board</a>.</p>

[Oliphaunt]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 28</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

I don't think Bombadil is Illuvatar; didn't it specifically say that He never went into the circle of Arda? I think that we (the Tolkien-reading public) aren't supposed to question TB's origin. Tolkien put him in there for his own reasons, and its those reasons we should try to figure out, not his classifications. People say that Tom is an embodiment of the vanishing Oxford countryside, but I never really made the connection. Was there a man with a blue coat and yellow boots with songs of &quot;derry doll&quot; in the vanishing Oxford countryside?

I first read &quot;The Fellowship of the Ring&quot; and imagined Durin's Bane with fiery wings long before I knew there were people devoting hours of thinking and arguing about those wings. Perhaps Tolkien kept the descriptions unclear and contradicting so the reader could imagine the more natural for him/herself.

</p>

[Impaler00]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 14</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

If a Balrog did not have wings then it would just be a giant up-right walking goat.

I believe they had wings but that their wings weren't strong enough for them to fly, so they just walked or 'glided' or they probably just used some mysterious dark power to make them fly.

Hehe :P (it's 5 am here i just woke up)

</p>

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Newly Deceased
Posts: 1</TD><TD><img src=http://www.geocities.com/Lord_Zard2001/ankkaperhe.jpg WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/narya.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

Well, I think that Balrogs have wings... It sounds so logical to me. But Tom... I don't know. I think he's not Iluvatar.

Balrogs are giant beasts with fiery eyes... So somehow, I think they also have big wings.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Muistattekos sen faktan siitä Roope-sedän numerosta 43 kun Roope sanoi..."
mailtoarth_Zard@hotmail.comLord Zard</a>
http://LordZard.cjb.netLord Zard's Galaxy</a></p>

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Newly Deceased
Posts: 4</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/narya.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

You can't use the text of The book of lost tales either when looking at Balrogs. The picture on the book of lost tales is probably based on the text where Balrogs had wings.

<a href=http://pub75.ezboard.com/barda61763>The Tolkien Discussion Board</a></p>

[Fingolfin]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 49</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/narya.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

No there is no mention of wings on Balrogs nor is any term withthe root wing ued in any cotext with the Balrgo except for a note in HoME X and that was just an adverb moding the term &quot;speed&quot;

Letter 144:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr> And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally). <hr></blockquote>



</p>

[Impmog2001]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Newly Deceased
Posts: 1</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/redeye.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

Who cares whether or not Balrogs fly? They're Maiar of a sort anyway, so they probably have some other form of transportation other than walking, whether it's flying or not!

</p>

[Mithadan]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Spirit of Mist
Posts: 931</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

Welcome to the Downs Impmog!

Bombadil is not Iluvatar. In Letters, JRRT specifically states that Iluvatar has not entered Arda. HoME X leaves the door open for Iluvatar entering Arda at the end of the world.

Re: Maiar and their ability to travel in a &quot;magical&quot; fashion, see the thread &quot;One hand tied behind their backs&quot; which discusses the abilities of Maiar and how their powers are restricted when they are incarnated in a body. While the Valar/Maiar would not need wings to fly or travel &quot;magically&quot; when they are not incarnated, once they have a body they use more mundane methods of travel. Thus the Istari arrive in ME by ship; they do not fly over or &quot;materialize&quot;. Without crossing swords on the issue of whether Balrogs have wings, if they can fly they would need wings (or an airplane, etc.) because they possess bodies.

--Mithadan--
"The Silmarils with living light
were kindled clear, and waxing bright
shone like stars that in the North
above the reek of earth leap forth." </p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000004>Mithadan </A> at: 7/20/01 8:58:34 am

[Impmog2001]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Newly Deceased
Posts: 10</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/redeye.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

I stand corrected.

</p>

[Mithadan]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Spirit of Mist
Posts: 932</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

Don't accept my position just because I say so, Impmog. <img src=wink.gif ALT=""> If you check out the thread I mentioned, you'll find there's plenty of room to discuss/argue the points. If I believed all of what people posted on discussion boards, I'd think that Tom is the Witch King of Angmar!

--Mithadan--
"The Silmarils with living light
were kindled clear, and waxing bright
shone like stars that in the North
above the reek of earth leap forth." </p>

[Mister Underhill]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dread Horseman
Posts: 782</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/redeye.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

You mean you don't?!!! Tom is SO clearly the Witch-king.

Okay, Mith, you and me. Start a new thread. It's the Scrap on the Map! It's the Fight to See Who's Right! It's the Showdown on the Barrow Down(s)! It's on!

</p>

[onewhitetree]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 112</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/redeye.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

The age old topic, back again, eh? I firmly stand on the No-Wings side of the battle, just to let you all know. My reasons are clearly stated elsewhere and by others on this site, so there's no reason for me to reiterate such a well-worn stand.

<p align=center>Every leaf a miracle ~ The woods are lovely, dark, and deep
I am Administrator at <a href=http://pub43.ezboard.com/bfangornforest>Fangorn Forest</a> and <a href=http://pub29.ezboard.com/btolkiencommunity87810>Planet Tolkien</a>.</p></p>

[Mister Underhill]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dread Horseman
Posts: 783</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/redeye.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

Hmm... perhaps, Kate, you weren't witness to my recent pro-wing offensive that started late in the &quot;Were Balrogs Winged?&quot; thread. If you keep an open mind, you might just become a convert! <img src=wink.gif ALT="">

</p>

[Fingolfin]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haunting Spirit
Posts: 53</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/redeye.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

I just heard something which I found quite interesting. Aparently literary devices such as &quot;winged speed&quot; are infact not used when describing winged creatures becasue it introduces an uncomfortable redundancy such that saying

The eagles passed with Winged spped of hitlim

doesn't feel right

ANy thoughts? <img src=smile.gif ALT="">

</p>

[Halbarad]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 49</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/redeye.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

1.Speed like a winged thing?

2.Tom could have been the fool/jester of Iluvatar -always singing and wearing ridiculously large boots. I'm more confused about Goldberry- doesn't fit with Fangorn's rhyme

3.I must say that I used to think balrogs had wings because it had one in the animated film picture book. Anyway, if the Balrog had wings it could have flown out of the chasm (which was plenty wide enough for it to spread its wings no matter how large) after dragging Gandalf in with him. Drop the whip and fly out- the chasm was very very deep so plenty of time to fly on out of there...sorry, just a new thought that came to me.

"A little people, but of great worth are the Shire-folk. Little do they know of our long labour for the safekeeping of their borders, and yet I grudge it not."</p>

[Eldar14]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 122</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

Why is everybody stuck up on the idea that Balrog's are large creatures?!? It doesn't give any reasons anywhere that I know of that would make one believe Balrogs are large.

My personal picture of a Balrog is not a devilish looking thing, but something that looks pretty much like a very evil Istari. I used to see them as ethereal, but I've since changed my views. I think they might have black cloaks, and of course black eyes and hair. I completely agree with obloquy about the knowledge of weapons and the mental stuff he described. Of course, the description I just gave is a no-wing stance.

I also don't think this argument will ever end; everybody's view of the Balrogs is diffferent

</p>

[obloquy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haunting Spirit
Posts: 61</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

Here you go, Eldar14:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Then Glorfindel's left hand sought a dirk, and this he thrust up that it pierced the Balrog's belly nigh his own face (for that demon was double his stature);...<hr></blockquote>

From BoLT2 Fall of Gondolin.

Also, FoTR tells us that the Balrog was &quot;of man-shape, maybe, yet greater...&quot;

</p>

[Elenhin]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 36</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

Balrogs in the BoLTs are somewhat different from the later Balrogs. There were thousands of them, they were made by Melko, they had no shadows surrounding them, and they were greater in size than later Balrogs.

In an early version of &quot;The Bridge of Khazad-Dum&quot; Tolkien wrote that the Balrog was not only man-shaped, but man-sized as well. After writing that, he wrote a note to himself: &quot;Change the description of the Balrog. It felt larger than it looked.&quot;

To make it feel larger, he introduced the shadow-cloak and the words &quot;yet greater&quot;. While it could be argued that these two words mean that the Balrog was giant-sized, I don't think that, in the light of the earlier version, it is very probable.

--
Elenhin

"My god, it's full of stars!"</p>

[obloquy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haunting Spirit
Posts: 62</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

We know that the number of balrogs was reduced and they became much more powerful later, but there is nothing specifically said about a reduction in stature.

Because I don't have the volume you're referring to, I can't form an argument based on the text you cite. However, I wouldn't personally rely on a rejected draft for information. It can give us an idea in some cases, but remember: originally Aragorn was a booted hobbit named Trotter. Perhaps earliest conceptions of the &quot;Bridge...&quot; chapter didn't involve a balrog at all.

So I am going to politely disagree with you. <img src=smile.gif ALT="">

Edit: Also, from the pro-wings standpoint (an opinion that I would not dare call less respectable than my own), the Balrog would have to be huge. To sum up a section of the essay I pointed to, since the Bridge spanned what was described as a &quot;chasm&quot;, it must be longer than it was wide, because a &quot;chasm&quot; is defined as being &quot;narrow&quot;. We know from the text that the width was fifty feet. So to be considered &quot;narrow&quot;, we would have a length of no less (says the essay, and I agree) than one hundred feet. A pro-wings position demands that the 'wings spread from wall to wall' passage be taken literally, which gives the Balrog a wingspan of no less than one hundred feet. That simply would not work on a being of man-size.

</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000090>obloquy</A> at: 8/26/01 3:56:53 pm

[Elenhin]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 42</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

Well, obloquy, that's one of my arguments against the Balrog wings <img src=wink.gif ALT="">
But we shall not debate that now.

Anyway, I'll have to politely disagree with you as well <img src=smile.gif ALT="">
The rejected draft of &quot;the Bridge&quot; at least 20 years later than the BoLT text, so I think say it's a much more reliable source. And we know that it was a Balrog out there because it says so in the text...

--
Elenhin

"My god, it's full of stars!"</p>

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Newly Deceased
Posts: 6</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Balrogs

I've always thought about why wouldn't the Balrog fly out of the chasm. Actually, I just finished the books yesterday, when I first came here and heard someone say something about Balrogs with wings, I was around that part of the book, lol. Anyway, that's why I've never thought they had wings (by never, I mean for a couple of weeks, lol).

</p>

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Newly Deceased
Posts: 3</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
re-wings

Hi new here ! On the wing thing, I've always seen them this way.

The text describes a shadow about it reaching out like two vast wings.

two paragraphs later it says &quot;it drew itself up to a great height and it's wing were spread from wall to wall.

So wings ,yes, but they are shadowy and too insubstancial for flight.

From the text mentioning it &quot;drew itself up to a great height&quot; could it be it is somewhat of a shape changer?

Not able to change from one thing to another, but able to increase and decrease it's size?

</p>

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Newly Deceased
Posts: 2</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

Maia can choose any form they want can't they? So is it not feasible that some had wings and some didn't? Why must their be general fixed image witch all the balrogs took? I really think that the whole winged balrog topic has been hacked to death at this stage anyway. The answers await us in the halls of Mandos.
As for Tom Bombadil? I don't know, I'll never be certain, but right now I'm thinking Aule. I'm not going to get fully into why now but it stems from his freedom from want of possesion of the ring. This is a trait of Aule's. Above someone said that we aren't supposed to question TB's origins. I disagree. Tolkien said that he left TB in to act as an &quot;enigma&quot;. I think this means he's there as a discussion piece. Enigmas are there for people to try and solve them. No doubt Tolkien knew himself given his obsessive attention to detail. But he probably left him in to give us something more relevant to discuss than whether balrogs had frickin wings are not.

</p>

[Hunter Two One]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Newly Deceased
Posts: 1</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

IF a balrog had wings and IF it could use them to fly, it most certainly does not guarantee that it could do so (fly) in Khazad-Dum. why?

1. its wingspan already spread from wall to wall (as per the text). if the balrog were moved off center (which it did when it fell to one side of the bridge), there wouldn't have been enough space to flap its wings.
2. it was off balance from Gandalf's attack, and therefore, it would not have had sufficient time to react appropriately to the fall. this disorientation would certainly misorient the balrog sufficiently that it could not correctly align itself for flight.
3. this is inside a mountain, how much clear space could you have inside it without the mountain collapsing all over that clear space? this implies that there would have been less clear space as the balrog (and Gandalf) fell.


</p>

[Elenhin]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 50</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

I don't think that the Balrogs could freely change their forms.

1. We know that some Ainur, particularly the evil ones (Morgoth and Sauron for example), may become so dependent on their bodies that they can no longer function without them or change them.

2. All the Balrogs, during all the ages, are described as being similar and no distinction between different kinds of Balrogs is ever made.

3. The reasoning Tolkien used to put Balrogs into the stories wasn't &quot;Melkor must have some Maia servants (usually they're fiery demons)&quot; but &quot;Melkor has fiery demons as his servants (they could be corrupted Maiar)&quot;. In Tolkien's mind the Balrogs existed long before the Maiar did, and so the Balrogs may not have gained all the &quot;Maia-abilities&quot; when they were changed from Melkor's creations into Ainur.

--
Elenhin

"My god, it's full of stars!"</p>

[Adunakhor]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Newly Deceased
Posts: 1</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

Hi all,


I saw this discussion about the Balrog wings and I checked for some info in LoTR and it says (free swedish translation): &quot;Slowly it walked across the bridge, until it suddenly raised itself to a great height with wings, which spanned from wall to wall..&quot;

So the Balrogs had wings, and if they spanned from wall to wall they must have been huge, which makes me believe they could have been able to fly, a slow, not very gracious flight it must have been tho.

Halbarad wrote:
&quot;...Anyway, if the Balrog had wings it could have flown out of the chasm (which was plenty wide enough for it to spread its wings no matter how large)&quot;

In my first quote from LoTR it is said that the wings were very large, from wall to wall, how could it fly once it had fallen into the chasm then?

&quot;Drop the whip and fly out- the chasm was very very deep so plenty of time to fly on out of there...sorry, just a new thought that came to me.&quot;

Well, as I imagine the balrog and Gandalf were pretty entangled and I wouldnt believe it could have flown out even if it had been able to spread it wings.


</p>

[Eldar14]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 133</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

If their were wings though, and huge ones they must be if they strectched wall to wall, why couldn't those huge wings have lifted both the Balrog AND Gandalf out of the chasm. Also, why would the Balrogs take form as devilish winged creatures, when all others of their kind (maiar and valar) chose forms at least possibly human or elf (including the evil ones like Morgoth and Sauron) As I've stated before, I think that Balrogs are pretty much REALLY evil looking human-type creatures (kinda like the Istari, but evil looking instead of sage-like)

</p>

[obloquy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haunting Spirit
Posts: 64</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

The Swedish translation appears to leave less room for doubt than the original English.

</p>

[Hunter Two One]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Newly Deceased
Posts: 5</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

eldar14, i believe i've outlined reasons why a possibly winged and flying balrog couldn't flap its wings and fly to hover in the chasm, even if it could support its own weight, its weapons and Gandalf ... i'm re-posting it below:

1. its wingspan already spread from wall to wall (as per the text). if the balrog were moved off center (which it did when it fell to one side of the bridge), there wouldn't have been enough space to flap its wings.
2. it was off balance from Gandalf's attack, and therefore, it would not have had sufficient time to react appropriately to the fall. this disorientation would certainly misorient the balrog sufficiently that it could not correctly align itself for flight.
3. this is inside a mountain, how much clear space could you have inside it without the mountain collapsing all over that clear space? this implies that there would have been less clear space as the balrog (and Gandalf) fell.





</p>

[Sauron]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Newly Deceased
Posts: 6</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

I believe that Balrogs had wings but I don't think it matters much. Hunter Two One, you mentioned just about everything I was going to say about why it did just fly out. Now I think it could fly but it also may not have flown. Look at the ostrich, it has wings but doesn't fly. I think that Tolkien wrote all things about the Balrog perfectly. I think he didn't really care if they had wings or not, I believe that Tolkien wanted us to draw our own conclusions about it. I mean come on, if each of us has our own idea about what the Balrog looks like it makes the books that much more personal.

As for Tom, I don't think Tolkien himself knew who he was. I am an aspiring writer and I understand where I am coming from on this. I write in something I have heard called free form. You write down your thoughts into a story which you have to make sure it all fits together. Some times when I write I don't really understand what I put down until I go back and re-read it. Writing like that allows you to learn everything that is going on along with the reader. Maybe this is what Tolkien did with Tom and it could be possible that he knows as much about Tom as the rest of us do.

</p>

[Eldar14]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 139</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

Yes, but even if Tolkien did create Balrogs as a creature to be created by the imagination of each reader, he himself must have had his own opinion of what it looked liked. I feel as if his view would probably be considered the actual form by the majority of the Tolkien community.

Personally, even if Tolkien originally wrote in Tom not knowing what exactly he was, he would probably have eventually created an idea of what Tom was. He did everything else so thorough, why would he leave a wide gap right in the middle of it all? I myself think that Tom is NOT a representation of some country-side in Britain, but that he actually does fit in with ME. Maybe he was some sort of creature that was around the same time Ilu was, just kind of floating around the void (I say this as if he was NOT created by Ilu)

</p>

[jallanite]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 82</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

A writer can quite easily create a mysterious stranger, and keep him as a mysterious stranger, even mysterious to himself. Many have.

Another example: JRRT certainly didn't know the history of the Ring Bilbo found when he wrote The Hobbit, and if the people at Allen &amp; Unwin and pressed him for a sequel staring Beorn instead of more hobbits, he might never have tried to work out its earlier history and what else it might be (and we would now be talking about a work named The Lord of the Bears).

Writing is somewhat like dreaming, the characters come alive and seem to act on their own, new ones appear that you never consciously decided to create, and often you don't know who they are or what they are, just the short part they play in the tale you see.

Consider the two &quot;other&quot; wizards. They apparently continued to remain vague to Tolkien. He invented some material about them to go into the Appendices and Index to The Lord of the Rings, though in the event the material was never used. Then in The Peoples of Middle-earth (HoME 12) in chapter XIII, &quot;Last Writings&quot;, indicating &quot;A note made on their names and functions seems now lost ...&quot; he re-invented many of the details, but they still remain vague.

Reading that material I don't get the impression that JRRT knew anything more about these wizards than the very short notes he put down, and even that was rather tentative and not truly a clear view.

In the same way he seems not to really have known anything much more about Amroth or Celebrimbor than appears in The Lord of the Rings when they appeared suddenly entered his tale when he was in the heat of inspiration. Later expansions on these characters in Unfinished Tales and &quot;Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age&quot; are minimal, contradictory, and suggest a great lack of solidity about anything connected with them except the parts afforded them in LR.

If JRRT did continue to consider Tom Bombadil an enigma, in his own mind, desiring he remain so as part of his literary effect, then any explanation given, no matter how plausible, cannot be right, if by &quot;right&quot; we mean the explanation that JRRT himself would have given.




</p>

[Halbarad]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haunting Spirit
Posts: 57</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Of Bombadillos and Balrogs

I think this would be a good time to mention that JRRT struggled with the whole story and that the writing process was very drawn out, not only by the war and his university work, but because he had no clear storyline- no basic plot in mind from the outset. ME in the time of the ring was not a great world that existed before Tolkien 'told' the story- it was painfully and laboriously invented, and it does not seem that JRRT had clear ideas about everything, even after the book was published
I would agree with jallanite on most of his points. However I would argue this: Bombadil existed before the writing of the LotR so he is less enigmatic than your writing about mysterious characters would imply.

"A little people, but of great worth are the Shire-folk. Little do they know of our long labour for the safekeeping of their borders, and yet I grudge it not."</p>

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Essence of Darkness
Posts: 846</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Tom the Maia

Why does no one consider Gandalf's words, at the end of LotR...

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> 'He is a moss-gatherer, whereas I have been a stone doomed to rolling.'<hr></blockquote>

So far, I've not noticed that this point has not even been considered. It's not proof, but it does suggest that there was a bond between the two. Gandalf is a Maia, but one who indeed was doomed to roll, forever working (until the Fourth Age). Does this passage not then hint that the two took diferent paths, but were kindred or at least of the same type in the beginning?
I believe Tolkien thought about this passage carefully before he wrote it.

</p>

[Halbarad]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haunting Spirit
Posts: 58</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Tom the Maia

I never thought about that, but when I do Gandalf also said he wanted to have a good long talk with Tom which I find significant. When Gandalf's business in ME is finished he goes to talk to Tom, not Elrond or Radagast or Cirdan. Q: What does Gandalf do in his spare time? A: Talks with Bombadil. So Gwaihir your point about a bond seems convincing to me

"A little people, but of great worth are the Shire-folk. Little do they know of our long labour for the safekeeping of their borders, and yet I grudge it not."</p>