|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bracegirdle
Valinor
Oct 28 2014, 3:15pm
Post #1 of 15
(1649 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Could Smaug REALLY fly?
|
Can't Post
|
|
I read an interesting book many years ago called The Flight of Dragons by Peter Dickinson. He gives some fascinating theories on the possible abilities of dragons. To briefly summarize:
Flight: The body was mostly hollow with several “flight” cavities which could be filled with hydrogen gas when needed to become lighter than air and the wings would need not needed for lift, only for propulsion and maneuvering. The hydrogen was made from the reaction of calcium (obtained from the self-renewing light bone structure which contained the flight cavities), and hydrochloric acid (found in the digestive system of all vertebrates), leaving aqueous calcium chloride as a by-product.
Lairing in caves: Being lighter than air its hide was of necessity thin and vulnerable to puncture, and lairing in caves was essential for safety and survival. (Though he would normally choose caves with narrow entrances that he could defend with his head (the least vulnerable and most fearsome part of his body).
Dragon-fire: The process of gas production could not be shut down completely and occasional venting would be necessary and the cave would soon become uninhabitable. So the dragon developed a method of burning the excess gas upon its discharge. (Here Dickinson cites the bombardier beetle which spits out 2 chemicals which react upon contact with oxygen. This fire-breathing then evolved as a necessity and its destructive quality was a natural extension of a logical path.)
Treasure hoarding: A dragon, of necessity, (safety, maturing, etc.) would spend much time in his lair and the cave would soon become a quagmire of toxic chemicals released from its body. Thus throughout the years the dragon became aware of the positive nesting qualities of gold; being a soft metal it would have no sharp edges which could puncture the dragons thin hide, and being inert gold would not be affected and the acidic fluids and would simply flow to the bottom of the cache. Being light of weight the dragon would find this a fairly comfortable bed.
To produce the calcium needed for the hydrochloric acid/calcium – hydrogen reaction the dragon would ingest limestone, and the dragon found that diamonds, rubies, etc. had the hardness to digest the limestone. Thus it might seem that a dragon’s lust was not monetary but simply an essential need for survival.
Other points of interest: Dragon’s didn’t have the power of speech. Rather their terrifying countenance and mesmerizing stare with their binocular vision might seem like a riddling form of speech to the unwary.
No dragon fossils have been found as the bodily chemical processes would cease to be controlled and the hydrochloric acid would consume the body bones and all.
Only mature males had the ability of flight.
Our friend Smaug was truly the “Chiefest and Greatest of Calamities”, as with his gem-encrusted hide he was surely the singular heavier-than-air flying dragon. Over hundreds of years he must have developed extra large and extra strong wings as he added gem after gem; and the process was nearly completed when he met a guy named Bard. 
He who breaks a thing to find out what it is, has a broken thing.
- BG
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Oct 28 2014, 8:57pm
Post #2 of 15
(1960 views)
Shortcut
|
I can't help wondering if some of Peter Dickinson's ideas in The Flight of Dragons were borrowed from Anne McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern novels. Specifically, Pernese dragons chew a mineral-rich stone to produce their flame and this could also produce gases that give them additional lift (although it might just be that Pern has a lighter gravitational field than Earth and perhaps a thicker atmosphere, enabling the existance of flying creatures large enough to bear men). Of course, Pernese dragons were also bred-up from the much smaller fire lizards.
Pernese dragons don't hoard, but they do possess human-like intelligence and are telepathic. They have the additional ability to teleport between and arrive almost instantly at any destination that its rider can clearly visualize.
As far as Smaug and other winged dragons of Middle-earth are concerned, perhaps there is a magical component to dragon-flight.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Oct 28 2014, 8:59pm)
|
|
|
Bracegirdle
Valinor
Oct 29 2014, 12:42am
Post #3 of 15
(1232 views)
Shortcut
|
Yes, it’s quite possible that Dickinson got many of his ideas from McCaffrey, if not the idea for the book itself. I think the stone McCafferey’s dragons consumed was called firestone.
Although McCaffery’s dragons must have had some magical qualities I get the thought that Dickinson’s attempt was to take the magic *out* of dragon-flight, fire breathing, etc. I don’t know how scientific his theories are but it seems a somewhat reasonable attempt.
Smaug, of course, must have been an exception being one heavy encrusted dude – perhaps there was a magical quality to his (and other's) flying ability?
He who breaks a thing to find out what it is, has a broken thing.
- BG
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Oct 29 2014, 1:12pm
Post #4 of 15
(1217 views)
Shortcut
|
Yes, it’s quite possible that Dickinson got many of his ideas from McCaffrey, if not the idea for the book itself. I think the stone McCafferey’s dragons consumed was called firestone.
Although McCaffery’s dragons must have had some magical qualities I get the thought that Dickinson’s attempt was to take the magic *out* of dragon-flight, fire breathing, etc. I don’t know how scientific his theories are but it seems a somewhat reasonable attempt.
Smaug, of course, must have been an exception being one heavy encrusted dude – perhaps there was a magical quality to his (and other's) flying ability?
I wasn't trying to ascribe magical qualities to Pernese dragons; McCaffrey was writing science fiction as Pern was a distant planet colonized by human travelers from Earth. McCaffrey's dragons were created through genetic engineering and breeding of the native fire lizards.
Middle-earth is an inherently magical place, especially in The Hobbit where leaving settled lands represents entering the realm of Fearie. One expects Tolkien's dragons to be magical creatures.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
Bracegirdle
Valinor
Oct 29 2014, 4:15pm
Post #5 of 15
(1209 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The difference between sci-fi and (Tolkien’s) fantasy I suppose
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
“Magic” for lack of a better word is a staple of sci-fi – anything goes.
I don’t see Middle-earth as “inherently magical”. Tolkien shied away from “magic” (as best he could) and I expect and get little “magic” from his writings. I prefer to interpret his work, his dragons, as historical rather than magical; and that was my original intent with my summarizing Dickinson’s book. (A little tongue-in-cheek of course.) 
He who breaks a thing to find out what it is, has a broken thing.
- BG
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Oct 30 2014, 8:07am
Post #6 of 15
(1196 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Depends on your flavor of s.f.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
“Magic” for lack of a better word is a staple of sci-fi – anything goes. I don’t see Middle-earth as “inherently magical”. Tolkien shied away from “magic” (as best he could) and I expect and get little “magic” from his writings. I prefer to interpret his work, his dragons, as historical rather than magical; and that was my original intent with my summarizing Dickinson’s book. (A little tongue-in-cheek of course.)
While it is true that science fiction can be viewed as a sub-genre of fantasy, hard s.f. tends to stick to what can be extrapolated from known science, usually doing away with such space-opera conventions as faster-than-light drives, time travel and psionics. Star Trek and Star Wars can both be considered space operas, though Trek is closer to the hard s.f. end of the spectrum. The Pern novels aren't quite hard s.f. either, but come closer than SW (at least in my estimation).
I'm not sure how you can say that Middle-earth doesn't represent a more magical era than our own. Non-human races with what we would consider to be supernatural abilities walk the earth; there are Men and animals who can understand (and even use) one another's speech. Wizards and godlings walk among Men or command armies. Gems burn with holy power and the realm of the gods can be reached (by some) by boarding a ship. I do concede that the end of the Third Age represents the fading of such magic and its eventual disappearance--at least from mortal lands.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
Bracegirdle
Valinor
Oct 30 2014, 4:32pm
Post #7 of 15
(1188 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Your points are understood and relevant
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
but you need not misquote me to make your point
. I'm not sure how you can say that Middle-earth doesn't represent a more magical era than our own.
I didn’t say that “Middle-earth doesn’t represent a more magical era than our own”. I DID say that Tolkien shied away from magic (or what would be magic to us) as much as he could. The case of Galadriel’s mirror for example: She was somewhat confused that Sam though it was “magic” when to her it was just a useful tool.
I’m always reminded of Arthur C. Clarke’s quote: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Could much of the “magic” of Middle-earth be (to us) a long-forgotten technology?
Non-human races with what we would consider to be supernatural abilities walk the earth; there are Men and animals who can understand (and even use) one another's speech.
We have, for example, dolphins who apparently talk to us. We just don’t know what they’re saying. We have chimpanzees that DO talk to us albeit by sign language. We have many domesticated animals that let us know what they want, without speech admittedly. Yet a form of communication.
Wizards and godlings walk among Men or command armies. Gems burn with holy power and the realm of the gods can be reached (by some) by boarding a ship. I do concede that the end of the Third Age represents the fading of such magic and its eventual disappearance--at least from mortal lands.
Here you do touch on (to me) the spiritual rather than SF or magic. Is taking ship anymore fanciful or magical than dying (today) and spending eternity in bliss or in hell? I for one don’t profess to know. (Can you say “metaphor”?)
There is good SF, based on scientific possibilities, and “bad” SF pushing the envelope of possibilities. SF and fantasy are two different methods of communication. To me Tolkien’s work lies outside the two, or at least in a different category; touching a wee bit on the magical, a bit on the fanciful, and a bit on the spiritual. This is what makes his work so compelling. This is why we, and thousands of others, are in a ‘world’ of our own – Tolkien’s world. This is why we are hammering on each other (in kindness, I trust).
He who breaks a thing to find out what it is, has a broken thing.
- BG
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Oct 30 2014, 7:04pm
Post #8 of 15
(1180 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I wouldn't use the terms 'good' and 'bad' in this context.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I didn't deliberately misquote you, but I might have misunderstood and/or misrepresented what you meant. I am hesitant to apply Arthur C. Clarke's famous maxim to Tolkien's Middle-earth.
There is good SF, based on scientific possibilities, and “bad” SF pushing the envelope of possibilities. SF and fantasy are two different methods of communication. To me Tolkien’s work lies outside the two, or at least in a different category; touching a wee bit on the magical, a bit on the fanciful, and a bit on the spiritual. This is what makes his work so compelling. This is why we, and thousands of others, are in a ‘world’ of our own – Tolkien’s world. This is why we are hammering on each other (in kindness, I trust).
I would never categorize hard s.f. as good and soft s.f. (for lack of a better term) as bad. There is plenty of good and bad at both ends of the spectrum. I will quote the late Ted Sturgeon, "Ninety percent of anything is crud."
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
Bracegirdle
Valinor
Oct 30 2014, 7:56pm
Post #9 of 15
(1177 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No, you didn’t deliberately misquote me
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
if you say so, but yes you did misunderstand.
Clarke’s quote is valid forward or backward. Time is irrelevant.
You fail to consider that I put the word “bad” in quotes which gives other possible twists to the word.
Now, we can continue to misquote, misunderstand, or take one-another out-of-context, but I choose an undefended gift for you – the Last Word – should you wish it.
Cheers
BG
He who breaks a thing to find out what it is, has a broken thing.
- BG
|
|
|
squire
Half-elven
Oct 31 2014, 1:12am
Post #10 of 15
(1175 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Tolkien's work lies outside fantasy?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I can only assume you are applying a fairly modern (i.e., late 20th - early 21st century) gloss to the term 'fantasy'. No one writes today as Tolkien did in the 1940s, but what he wrote back then could only be called, I should think, "fantasy" (though he preferred 'heroic romance', I believe!).
Now many people maintain that Tolkien actually invented 'fantasy' as a genre. They're wrong, of course -- no one author could make such a claim -- but they're right to the degree that The Lord of the Rings popularized and legitimized what had been until then a highly marginal literature.
Interestingly, when LotR came out, most bookstores stocked it in their 'science fiction' area; and Tolkien won a Best Science Fiction award for LotR in the Netherlands in the late 1950s.
Tolkien acknowledged the presence of magic in his book. He was only poking fun at his own time's popular concept of 'magic' in the scene with Sam and Galadriel's mirror. His point was not that magic didn't exist in his world, but that it didn't follow the kind of folklore 'rules' that hobbits and 20th century readers might expect it to after reading too many stories about wizards and witches and their various exotic and smoky miracles of transformation, etc..
He wrote a very interesting disquisition on how he imagined magic in Middle-earth in his letter #155, differentiating between magia (good or white magic) and goeteia (bad or black magic). He distinguishes quite sharply between both these phenomena, and technology a la Arthur C. Clarke; he rejects the idea that his world's 'magic' is simply advanced science. Rather, as he acerbically notes, the kind of personality that is attracted to power will use any means to achieve that end: thus his evil magicians (Sauron and Saruman) use both magic and technology to get their way through force and domination of others' free wills.
That's the kernel of Tolkien, perhaps in contrast to many later writers in the fantastic genre: he was primarily concerned with morals and ethics, not with effects and spells and incantations. Fantasy appealed to his romantic imagination as a vehicle, but his destination was entirely located in the mid-20th century.
squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd & 4th TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion and NOW the 1st BotR Discussion too! and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
 = Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.
|
|
|
Bracegirdle
Valinor
Oct 31 2014, 3:41am
Post #11 of 15
(1168 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Tolkien's work lies outside fantasy? Seriously squire...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I take it you’re putting your spin on this statement
There is good SF, based on scientific possibilities, and “bad” SF pushing the envelope of possibilities. SF and fantasy are two different methods of communication. To me Tolkien’s work lies outside the two, or at least in a different category; touching a wee bit on the magical, a bit on the fanciful, and a bit on the spiritual. This is what makes his work so compelling. and simply using the word “outside” and ignoring the words “different” and “fanciful”. I’m ineptly trying to say that I consider Tolkien’s work to be in a class and quality of its own even though, yes it IS a fantasy.
He who breaks a thing to find out what it is, has a broken thing.
- BG
|
|
|
Bracegirdle
Valinor
Oct 31 2014, 12:44pm
Post #13 of 15
(1158 views)
Shortcut
|
|
To clarify an admittedly somewhat obtuse statement
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Tolkien’s pre-death published work is faux historical, philological, spiritual, philosophical, and filled with beautiful poetry. And he has merged these elements into an exciting, touching, complex and poignant tale. Taking these terms into consideration I stand by my thought that his work is “outside” or more correctly “different” than any other SF or fantasy than I am aware of.
I find your subject line (directed at me I take it?) to be an affront to my intelligence, and taking a single word (outside) out of context in order to write a dissertation and declaim your superior knowledge is unseemly.
He who breaks a thing to find out what it is, has a broken thing.
- BG
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Oct 31 2014, 1:22pm
Post #14 of 15
(1153 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You can certainly correct me if I'm wrong...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I believe that one of your earlier points was that Middle-earth, itself, did not literally represent the realm of Faerie in Tolkien's legendarium; that role is more properly ascribed to the Undying Lands--originally a physical part of Arda but then separated (essentially) to exist outside of the mundane plane of existance. My contention was that, as far as Bilbo was concerned, he began to enter Faerie when Thorin's company left familiar and settled lands and entered Wilderland. However, that may also be one of the things that separate The Hobbit (originally only tenuously connected to Tolkien's larger myth-cycle) from the more thoroughly developed The Lord of the Rings. To that extent I think that I understand what you mean when you say that Middle-earth is not "inherently magical." I just don't fully agree with that statement, nor with the idea that Tolkien's dragons are more historical than magical; I see them as both, since they are creatures developed by Morgoth and not entirely natural. If Smaug slept on a bed of coal rather than a pile of gold and jewels then I might be more inclined to agree.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Oct 31 2014, 1:29pm)
|
|
|
Bracegirdle
Valinor
Oct 31 2014, 2:04pm
Post #15 of 15
(1169 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I would certainly not, at this point, attempt to correct you...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It’s wondrous how my simple original book report has developed into an all-out fracus filled with misunderstandings. But that is as often as not the end product of an OP. //
He who breaks a thing to find out what it is, has a broken thing.
- BG
|
|
|
|
|
