|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
Mon, 1:15pm
Post #1 of 11
(512 views)
Shortcut
|
|
2319 Days free of 'Balrog wings' incidents!*
|
Can't Post
|
|
In fact it has been so long that maybe some newer forum members would like some background?
The LOTR passage in which the Balrog appears on the Bridge of Kazad-dum is exciting (and so probably first-time readers go at speed). It's vivid (so that whatever the impression is from that first reading, it lodges firmly in the reader's mind). But it turns out that there's a point on which it is ambiguous.
And this led to a group of fans who thought balrogs had wings, and a second group who were puzzled how anyone could have got this impression. In the early 2000s, people asking 'do balrogs have wings' were everywhere online. I'm not sure but I think it might have become part of a driniking game played by forum members then, in which overly-frequently-answered questions were greeted with people posting " *glug*" (would anyone like to reminisce about that game, and say whether balrogs were included?). Later, I remember the question still coming up from time to time, and the lovely forum member Elizabeth politely explaining each time that it was a popular question, and why it had no definitive answer.
But now, not so much?
I want to ask and ponder about why that question used to come up so much, why it doesn't now - or not here, at least! For anyone wanting to know how come the answer is ambiguous, I can think of no finer reference than this post, originally 2003, by Reverend (a titan of this community at that time and someone who I feel sorry I didn't overlap with.)
But why did people get so exited about it, and why doesn't it continue? I don't know, but have some hypotheses:
- It's possible that the debate rages on, but nowadays on sites and apps I don't use. In that case it would be a change in the prominence of this board, or the types of users it attracts. Or perhaps the rate at whcih new forum members are arriving (then and now): folks who don't know about balrog's wings already...
- Was it a feature of the sudden growth of the Internet just before then? People meeting and being puzzed by the ideas of other fans for the first time? In the pre Internet days, you just read the book. If you had friends who liked it too, you discussed it with them. But I think my experience of the pre-internet era was common enough: Tolkien fandom existed from the late 1950s (I later discovered) but I had no access to it. Even if you discovered it, it likely meant travel to physical moots and meetings, or sending some stamped, self-addressed envelopes and a cheque of to someone who would send out 'Roneo'd' or 'Gestetner'd' copies of fanzines or newsletters, probably in luridly-coloured ink. (The machine we had at school offered vermillion, purple, or a bright green.). Or maybe no fanzines or newlsetters would come back, if the Editor got busy, or got in trouble for using the office photocopier; or had one of those fearsome but incomprehensible squabbles that I'm sure affected fandoms even then, and gave up the editing job. And interntational postage rates would have prevented me in England getting someting from America (or vice versa) Anyway, the idea here is that in the early 2000s, with the rapid expansion of teh Internet, there could have been many fans who had always assumed that balrogs {had metaphorical wings/had literal, physical wings} and were confused to be encountering for the first time others who had always assumed the opposite. That was my situation - the ambiguity in the text had never occurred to me until I was on this forum.
- Was it the film? PJ's ROTK appeared in 2000, including a balrog with wings (or at least wing bones). Was it that point at which come fans who'd read the balrog as wingless went Huh? or It's an outrage! and this is what started it as a subject for posts?
- Or, has the contoversy died down now because the PJ films have in effect settled it? That is, is it that whatever Tolkien intended (if he intended any settled thing - refer to Reverend's post) the film is what people mostly have in their heads these days. In that case, just like if ask peoeple to imagine Frankenstein's monster, a lot of people imagine him as played by Boris Karloff (bolt through neck etc.). But I'm told that is not how Mary Shelley described him.
Whichever it is, I think the balrog is a useful example of how there can be multiple interpretations of the text, just as valid as each other. And how someone can not even realise there's another way of looking at things unti you meet someone who thinks differently.
----
* Last discussed, I think, in this thread from February 2019 Which, mathematical whizzes may well notice is not 2319 days ago. TBH I was thinking more "2319!!"
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
(This post was edited by noWizardme on Mon, 1:19pm)
|
|
|
Ethel Duath
Gondolin
Tue, 2:51pm
Post #2 of 11
(445 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I can't resist. Some of you know what's coming.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Old and tired as it (he?) is, here you go. 
The Balrog has lost his identity;
He's searching for self-esteem.
He knows he a sort of entity,
And can make most people scream--
But he's losing his body-image,
And seems to be gaining weight,
For he used to be able to leave the ground,
Till they started this darn debate!
|
|
|
Silvered-glass
Nargothrond
Tue, 3:16pm
Post #3 of 11
(443 views)
Shortcut
|
I have been meaning for a while now to post a Reading Room thread about Balrog wings that draws on some HoME material that I never saw mentioned in the wing discussions back in the day. However with multiple projects it's hard to get anything finished and the Balrog wings one is low in the priority list.
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
Tue, 4:31pm
Post #4 of 11
(436 views)
Shortcut
|
That's still a goodun.
While writing that post, an image came to me of Open Night At The Folk Club. They normally have someone lined up to get it started but then you can get to a point where everyone everyone looks at each other. So, as I am now imagining it "Come on Jerry," they say "what about that Tolkien song you used to do?"
And he's a team player so he gets to the front and is handed a guitar before it dawns on him that he hasn't practiced it since...that last time.
Ah. Oh well;
The nicer members of the folk club quickly understand the predicament and sing along lustily, watching the guitarist closely as it's likely the tempo will slow up or the piece come to a complete halt if there's a tricky chord change.
If you're singing along, it is aceptable to put a finger in one ear.
It is not considered polite to put fingers in both ears.
And the song goes like this, to a not-so-old Scottish tune
Balrog of Fire
Are there wings on your body
Or not?
Please note, I require
Definitive answers
O Balrog of Fire
At this point, Sorcha is sighted returning from the loo, so the assembly breaks into sufficiently rapturous applause that the song can be regarded as over, and we can have some fiddle music next. Phew. Someone buy Jerry a pint in case he's sorry not to have been able to do the other 27 verses. But I think he's relieved really.
But I find (as per the same composer in an earlier band):
When I find myself with wings of balrogs
Great Ennui* comes over me
Singing words of wisdom
"Let it be!"
---
*Great Ennui is the equivalent of Eru in a further fantasy world that Tolkien started, but it made him feel tired and too bored to continue. I think the plan was that Great Ennui is a sloth that stands atop at least four elephants...
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
Tue, 5:15pm
Post #5 of 11
(419 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Or maybe quantum mechanics can help...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
There was once a man (E. Schrödinger)
Who said "this wings thing's a humdinger!"
"Treat it just like my cat
And you'll soon find out that
We can give up this lark -- let's have dinner!"
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
|
|
|
CuriousG
Gondolin
Tue, 7:39pm
Post #6 of 11
(405 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'd like to order some wingless wings, please
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I do remember feeling passionately about the wings issue once upon a time, and I think it's for the reason you describe: that passage is exciting and vivid, and shrouded in myth and mystery for a first-time reader who has no idea what Gandalf is saying, only that it sounds epic.
First, you've got this background "music" in your head as the pursuit in this big, dark, seemingly cursed underground city is nearing its climax (even a new reader can feel the build toward *something*):
Even as he spoke they heard again the pursuing drum-beat: Doom, doom, doom. Then Gandalf:
‘I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn. Go back to the Shadow!
Even "Shadow" isn't clear when you're new: Mordor, land of Shadow, or something else related to this mysterious Secret Fire and flame of Anor? And is Udûn that little spot in Mordor on the map, or some place worse? And what is a "whip of flame" like in real life: is it like a whip that's burning, or literal flame, and how do you keep the fire going? OK, sure, it's magic, but still...It's a challenge to understand the specifics of this scene, but as a reader, you really want to.
So your mind is filled with questions, excitement, the thrill of victory when the Balrog falls, and the agony of defeat when Gandalf falls, and you feel really, really invested in this scene. So yeah, it matters emotionally rather than rationally if it has fly-worthy wings, not because of aerodynamic science, but because you feel so sucked into the story and the aftermath. I really don't care anymore what people say in the wings/no wings debate, but I used to be as triggered by it as provocative statements like "Frodo is obviously the real villain of LOTR," etc.
|
|
|
Lissuin
Doriath
Wed, 1:19am
Post #7 of 11
(341 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Not a Balrog's wings post exactly, noWiz,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
although your link did lead to "The Mull of Kintyre" by Wings (as you very well knew.  )
TORn is making me nostalgic as heck today. My great-great grandmother was a MacAlister who left Kintyre for Boston, Massachusetts in the mid-1800's. I listened to Mr McCartney sing his beautiful, mournful song, got all teary thinking about a young woman alone taking a ship across the sea carrying a folk tune in her thoughts. Then I googled the song, which I had never heard (Wikipedia says it wasn't a hit in the US then, silly us), and saw it was only written in 1977. Whatever, I think she must have thought of those faraway sea cliffs for the rest of her life. Though I've never been, I did get close in Ayr, Glasgow, the Trossachs and Loch Lomond. Somehow I missed the Balrog version being sung in any of the pubs I frequented there. 
Back to topic: I think of the Balrog as a very hidden-depths-of-Scotland sort of beastie. Now that ROP is filming there, perhaps we can finally get a nature doco out of it that can settle the big question once and for all!
Your Great Ennui was actually a moody teenager, and it could have been any one of us.
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
Wed, 11:22am
Post #8 of 11
(228 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Be careful not to 'dig too deep'! (and some rumblings about 'Word Of God')
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Please dig, but don't 'did too deep'. I mean, look what happend to the dwarves of Moria
Seriously though, I have to say that I suspect that any publicly available document that's at all relevant to Balrog wings has been so rummaged through and argued about over the years. So it's not too likely that there is much left unexamined on which to build a re-examination.
But of course I could be wrong about that.
For me, at least (and I think this is also fairly clear in Reading Room culture, though that of course may change over time with changing participants, and other boards may anyway differ), there's also an important distinction between:- "what Tolkien Really Meant or "The True Meaning of Tolkien" etc. on the one hand. This tends to be (ortends to be taken to be) a claim that this particular reading is correct or canonical or compulsory (as I sarcastically put it The One Reading To Rule Them All) and;
- Interpretations (these are the ideas I am having; or the connections I am making; or in any other way the fun I am having) on the other
The first is a biographical claim about Tolkien (like "Tolkien didn't like chocolate"). The second may be a personal statement ("I like chocolate")
Of course, in principle maybe Tolkien did mean a specific thing at this point in the text. Or he did like chocolate, or was badly allergic to it, or just didn't like it. And in principle we might find him (or a very compelling secondary source - C Tolkien, say) explaining that such and such a thing was what he did mean. Or about the chocolate.
But Tolkien was serially uninterested in, or even hostile to, explaining with official Word Of God what he meant about a lot of things in his texts. By "Word Of God" I mean the concept handily set out in this TV Tropes article:
A statement regarding some ambiguous or undefined aspect of a work, the Word of God comes from someone considered to be the ultimate authority, such as the creator, director or producer. Word Of God on TVTropes
And that TV Tropes explains well, I think, how expecting Word Of God on every issue is a bit naieve:
It's important to keep in mind that just because someone wrote a character or setting, doesn't mean they decided on a correct answer to every question that could possibly be asked about that character or setting. It is not at all uncommon for fans to ask questions which they believe to be obvious, but which the creator has never considered.
I think that is exactly the situation we are in with whether balrogs have wings or not.
The TV Tropes also raises a further point I think is very relevant to Tolkien:
Fans may look for the Word of God to settle Fanon disputes, but the Authority may have moved on and doesn't care to respond. In many cases the authority does not feel the need to respond; further pressure simply leads to suggestions that the fandom is misaimed . In point of fact, there are good reasons many creators don't respond to requests for this: they want the fans to make their own interpretations. Especially in an ongoing series where the creator knows facts the fans don't, they might very well know for a fact that both fan theories have truth in them and thus not wish to take sides. Alternatively, the author might view both readings of the story as equally acceptable, and thus not want to comment. TV Tropes article on Word Of God (ibid)
That point on 'misaimed fandom', is what is going on in Letter 153, in which Tolkien is expressing some irritiation (as I read it) with some fans having the cheek to tell him he's imagining his imaginary world wrong:
Dear Mr Hastings,
Thank you very much for your long letter. I am sorry that I have not the time to answer it, as fully as it deserves. You have at any rate paid me the compliment of taking me seriously; though I cannot avoid wondering whether it is not ‘too seriously’, or in the wrong directions. The tale is after all in the ultimate analysis a tale, a piece of literature, intended to have literary effect, and not real history. That the device adopted, that of giving its setting an historical air or feeling, and (an illusion of ?) three dimensions, is successful, seems shown by the fact that several correspondents have treated it in the same way–according to their different points of interest or knowledge: i.e. as if it were a report of ‘real’ times and places, which my ignorance or carelessness had misrepresented in places or failed to describe properly in others. Its economics, science, artefacts, religion, and philosophy are defective, or at least sketchy.
...
... I should actually answer: I do not care. This is a biological dictum in my imaginary world. It is only (as yet) an incompletely imagined world, a rudimentary ‘secondary’; but if it pleased the Creator to give it (in a corrected form) Reality on any plane, then you would just have to enter it and begin studying its different biology, that is all.
Letter 153 from 1954, Letters of JRR Tolkien, Ed H Carpenter
Gosh: Tolkien Fandom - taking Tolkien too seriously and in the wronng directions since 1954. Should I get some T--shirts printed?
By 'biological dictum' in the second paragraph there btw, the specific thing Tolkien is talking about is someone lecturing him about (real-world) biology or genetics, and claiming that, as seperate species or races, elves and Men should not be able to have fertile children together.
But I think Tolkien's point applies to balrogs. To paraphrase: if it pleased the Creator to give Arda (in a corrected form) Reality on any plane, then you would just have to enter it and begin studying the biology of balrogs, that is all.
To go back to interpretations (as opposed to claims to have discovered the Word Of God on a matter) I hope everyone can see how if I say "Tolkien didn't like chocolate" it's reasonable to ask for proof, but if I say "I like chocolate" it's ridiculous to tell me that I don't or ask me to prove it. And that remains so even for folks who can't imagine how anyone could like chocolate, or have ever tried it, or for whom it is anathema for some reason.
Good luck with your work on the HoME material Silvered-glass!
----
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
(This post was edited by noWizardme on Wed, 11:23am)
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
Wed, 11:54am
Post #9 of 11
(224 views)
Shortcut
|
What a lovely 'applicability' (to use a Tolkien term)! By 'applicability' I mean (as some will already know) the idea that it's really unlikely Paul McCartney was thinking about your ancestor specifically, and it is of course impossible that she heard the song. But a lovely thing about art (in the general sense of the term) is that it can tie two such things together, regardless of timelines and logic.
It seems entirely reasonable to me that this 1977 song could seem applicable to your ancestor. I'm touched to have accidently brought it to your attention, and I' glad you enjoyed it.
And of course art can mean many things all at once, and gain power through ambiguity. In the case of this Wings song, I don't think it is at all necessary or helpful to be forced to choose between:- Paul McCartney was writing about his personal feelings (the estate he bought on the Mull feels like home ot him in a deep way)
- The song is about someone who has strong feelings of a place being home (The Mull of Kintyre standing in here for whichever part of the world is relevant to the listener)
- The song is about the Scottish diaspora
- The song is about all disapora (The Mull of Kintyre standing in here for whichever part of the world is relevant to the listener)
Or "All Of The At Once!" BIlbo might say.
The idea that it is sad and limiting to nail a piece of art to one specific meaning only is also something that applies to my views on balrog wings, as it happens.
***
Interesting that the song didn't make much of an impression in the USA. In the UK it was ubiquitous. ("The song's broad appeal was maximised by its pre-Christmas release, and it became a Christmas number-one single in the UK, spending nine weeks at the top of the charts. It also became an international hit, charting high in Australia and many other countries over the holiday period", says Wikipedia). IIRC, no sooner (or so it felt) had it faded from the charts than it was replaced by an instrumental cover version.
It would be absolutely excellent for our purposes if that cover version of this Wings song had been by The Shadows, but no such luck - it was a Scottish Regiment's military band, I think.
Anyway, I'm afraid I heard it enough to begin to find it annoying, which it in no way deserves, except because it isn't really my personal taste in music and maybe because it has such an ear-wormy melody that I can't get rid of it from my mind for ages and it keeps coming back even though I don't want it to.
And that, along with the artist name, makes it a highly appropriate song to parody about balrog wings.
*** I think of the Balrog as a very hidden-depths-of-Scotland sort of beastie. Now that ROP is filming there, perhaps we can finally get a nature doco out of it that can settle the big question once and for all!
Well yes! Maybe some future part of ROP will feature a balrog that has been shot in the Trossachs. Sounds painful - I mean I don't think I would like to be shot in the Trossachs, would you?
***
Great Ennui was contacted for comment, but just made some sort of grunting noise from under the duvet.
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
Wed, 12:47pm
Post #10 of 11
(220 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It's not about balrogs, it's about us (Tolkien fans)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Thinking about why this simple question is such a perennial, I've come to the conclusion that it isn't really about balrogs. It's more anthropological than literary. It's a simple (and in my view, unanswerable and unimportant) question that bubbles along not because of its own merits but because it brings out that:- People can be highly invested in a particular interpretation, because that is meaningful to them in any one of a number of ways (as per your post, CuriousG). but meanwhile...
- Someone else is just as invested in some other reading, which is just as meaningful to them (and may be equally justifiable from the text and/or secondary sources).
- People can wish there was (or behave as if there should be) a single right, correct, canonical and compulsory explanation for each and every thing. But meanwhile...
- ...other people are very comfortable with ambiguity and multiple meanings in art (and don't appreciate being told they must pick one - or rather that it has been picked for them).
- Some people are interested by alternative points of view, and others are quickly frustrated by them or feel otherwise upset
And that is without going into "the dark side" of fan behaviour - trolls etc.- which are largely kept under control here by our valiant admins, but of course folks can join a discussion already riled up from more rough-and-tumble places.
***
Would you like some buffaloless buffalo sauce with your wingless wings?
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
|
|
|
CuriousG
Gondolin
Wed, 9:21pm
Post #11 of 11
(168 views)
Shortcut
|
|
There's fans, and then there's fans
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Trying to think of other fandoms I visit/avoid, on the "avoid" list is Downton Abbey, where on Reddit literally every week there is the same stupid debate about who is worse, Mary or Edith, and no one will talk about anything else. The only point of agreement is people like the fancy clothes, but then they argue about which dress is best. (*aristocratic eye-roll using Received Pronunciation*) Similarly bad are a couple sites for Buffy the Vampire Slayer: I was never much of a fan, but I thought the humor was unusually sharp and witty in the first few seasons, and I went looking for places to share that appreciation and regretted it.
Sci-fi fares a little better, but I avoid Star Wars, which reeks of hate for reasons beyond count. Star Trek is a bit more civilized, I think aided by the generally optimistic, positive thinking behind the Federation. (I said *generally*.) I do get tired of Trekkies denouncing Janeway for "murdering" Tuvix (when Tuvok and Neelix were fused into one person), and it's more nonsensical than debating flying Balrogs, which after all isn't judgmental and full of moral posturing.
The legacy shows like Babylon 5 and FarScape are oddly, but happily, free of repeat, toxic debates like "murdering" Tuvix and are more like fandoms ought to be: people expressing appreciation for various people, places, things, and events on the show, so a nice place for nostalgia.
|
|
|
|
|
