From: sonshi57@mindspring.com (Douglas Henderson) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Balrog Wings The positive view Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 18:37:51 GMT Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 5 Message-ID: <37c7893f.5512780@news.mindspring.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: a5.f7.11.16 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 26 Aug 1999 18:39:17 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!remarQ-easT!supernews.com!remarQ.com!news.mindspring.net!firehose.mindspring.com!not-for-mail Could someone please post the positive view for Balrog wings. I'm just curious what it is. \/\/\/\/ Sindamor Pandaturion ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Balrog Wings The positive view Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 20:11:24 -0400 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Lines: 24 Message-ID: <7q4lhk$4tv$1@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> References: <37c7893f.5512780@news.mindspring.com> <7q48iu$27s_042@Org.xenite.org> Reply-To: "Conrad Dunkerson" NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.56.108 X-Trace: bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net 935713140 5055 12.79.56.108 (27 Aug 1999 00:19:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Aug 1999 00:19:00 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!wnmaster2!not-for-mail Michael Martinez wrote in message news:7q48iu$27s_042@Org.xenite.org... > In article <37c7893f.5512780@news.mindspring.com>, sonshi57@mindspring.com (Douglas Henderson) wrote: >> Could someone please post the positive view for Balrog >> wings. I'm just curious what it is. > J.R.R. Tolkien said the Balrog had wings. It is usually related in greater detail with quotations of the 'wings spread from wall to wall' and 'winged speed' passages, but yes... that essentially is it. The pro-wings view is that what Tolkien wrote means the Balrog had wings. It comes down to interpretation... others do not believe that the words JRRT wrote had that intended meaning. JRRT did not (that I am aware of) ever actually write "the Balrog had wings" or "the Balrog did not have wings", and thus the debate. What he DID write on the issue seems inconclusive. ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) Subject: Re: Balrog Wings The positive view Organization: The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Net Distribution: world Message-ID: <7q48iu$27s_042@Org.xenite.org> References: <37c7893f.5512780@news.mindspring.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Lines: 12 Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 20:37:50 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.224.149.230 X-Trace: news.uswest.net 935699923 207.224.149.230 (Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:38:43 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:38:43 CDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news-out.uswest.net!news.uswest.net!Xenite In article <37c7893f.5512780@news.mindspring.com>, sonshi57@mindspring.com (Douglas Henderson) wrote: >Could someone please post the positive view for Balrog wings. I'm >just curious what it is. J.R.R. Tolkien said the Balrog had wings. -- \\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web info@xenite.org \\// FREE! Watch Internet TV shows at Xenite.Org! //\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm] // \\ENITE.org............................................... ###### From: "db" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Balrog Wings The positive view Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 17:18:50 +0200 Organization: WorldOnline News server Lines: 71 Message-ID: <7qgs40$fo6$4@news.worldonline.nl> References: <37c7893f.5512780@news.mindspring.com> <7qbhau$1d7$2@news.worldonline.nl> <7qc1du$a4u$4@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: vp204-41.worldonline.nl X-Trace: news.worldonline.nl 936113088 16134 195.241.204.41 (31 Aug 1999 15:24:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@worldonline.nl NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Aug 1999 15:24:48 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!uni-erlangen.de!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!news.worldonline.nl!not-for-mail Conrad Dunkerson wrote in message <7qc1du$a4u$4@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>... >db wrote in message >news:7qbhau$1d7$2@news.worldonline.nl... > >> One thing not open for interpretation: >> The Bridge of KHAZAD-DÛM >> "It stepped forward slowly on the bridge, and suddenly it >> drewitself up to a great height, and its wings were >> spread from wall to wall;..." > >> Its wings. That's it. > >Allow me to provide a few similar out of context passages; > >"...in the middle of which was a dark form, of man- >shape..." > >Of man shape. That's it. > >"...and the shadow about it reached out like two vast >wings." > >The shadow. That's it. Yep. That's it. Whatever it is, that's it. >Anything taken out of context can become more definitive. >Your quotation in no way shows that the Balrog definitely >had wings (which I think you realize). Yes it does. "Fire came out from its nostrils". "Its wings were spread from wall to wall". It had nostrils. Like it had wings. Even taken out of >context... Especially, but not only when taken out of context. I wasn't about to quote the entire chapter, as we all know what "it" refers to. The shadow is the shadow. What causes it I never really wondered about, but I'm sure it's irrelevant to the issue of the BW. >well, in that case we don't know what "it" is >now do we? The whole text must be taken together. If the >passage you quoted were NOT open for interpretation as you >say then we simply cannot know what 'it' is... we have to >interpret / assume that to be the Balrog - no proof of this This is silly. Reasoning like this will force authors from now never to refer to anything or anyone at all anymore except by its/his actual name. Don't start by even vaguely suggesting a case could be made that "it" is anything other than "it" was, ie the Balrog. >is included in the words you provide. If we open it up to >more text... well then we begin to include the text which >argues against "...its wings..." being actual wings. Whatever. db _________ Yep. That's about the size of it, Bunky. _________ PS: Pls remove ".NoSpam" from email adres when replying ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Balrog Wings The positive view Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 18:02:25 -0400 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Lines: 42 Message-ID: <7qhjsb$ii3$1@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> References: <37c7893f.5512780@news.mindspring.com> <7qbhau$1d7$2@news.worldonline.nl> <7qc1du$a4u$4@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <7qgs40$fo6$4@news.worldonline.nl> Reply-To: "Conrad Dunkerson" NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.28.205 X-Trace: bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net 936137419 19011 12.79.28.205 (31 Aug 1999 22:10:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Aug 1999 22:10:19 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!uunet!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!wnmaster2!not-for-mail db wrote in message news:7qgs40$fo6$4@news.worldonline.nl... > Especially, but not only when taken out of context. I > wasn't about to quote the entire chapter, as we all know > what "it" refers to. Oh... so we can assume that 'it' is the Balrog when we are quoting out of context but not that the 'wings' were actually shadows which moved like wings? :) > This is silly. Reasoning like this will force authors > from now never to refer to anything or anyone at all > anymore except by its/his actual name. No, I entirely agree that it is silly to ignore the fact that JRRT had just been speaking of the Balrog and thus we can logically assume 'it' to be the Balrog. However, I consider it just as silly to cut out other text relevant to the meaning of the passage. If we ARE going to base part of our analysis on text outside of the immediate passage ('it' being the Balrog) then we should take ALL relevant passages into account (shadow LIKE wings). What you are doing seems to me like saying that a passage reading; "The Balrog had a shadowy emanation which reached out like two vast wings. The Balrog did not in truth have wings, but the shadow might be called such. It then drew itself up to a great height and its wings were spread from wall to wall." could ignore everything but "...its wings were spread from wall to wall..." and thus 'conclusively show' that the Balrog had wings. Ignoring the earlier text might allow the evidence against Balrog wings to be discounted, but if we are going to play that sort of game we logically should not be able to define 'it' as the Balrog either. ###### From: jsavard@tenMAPSONeerf.edmonton.ab.ca (John Savard) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Balrog Wings The positive view Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 15:58:37 GMT Organization: PowerSurfr - High Speed Internet Lines: 20 Message-ID: <37cd4c3d.1750623@news.prosurfr.com> References: <37c7893f.5512780@news.mindspring.com> <7q48iu$27s_042@Org.xenite.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: c9169-003.v-wave.com X-Trace: dagger.videotron.ab.ca 936201437 22515 24.108.21.103 (1 Sep 1999 15:57:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@powersurfr.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Sep 1999 15:57:17 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.telusplanet.net!news.tac.net!news.videotron.ab.ca!not-for-mail Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote, in part: >In article <37c7893f.5512780@news.mindspring.com>, sonshi57@mindspring.com (Douglas Henderson) wrote: >>Could someone please post the positive view for Balrog wings. I'm >>just curious what it is. >J.R.R. Tolkien said the Balrog had wings. Although in a previous paragraph, he said the Balrog had a shadow that looked like wings, when he later said the Balrog had wings there was no connection with the previous simile such as to imply that he was speaking even more figuratively. So I don't see any escape from accepting the Balrog did have wings. I'd expect they were particularly big and terrifying wings, too, for the mention of the wings to come after the mention of a wing-like shadow; for the real wings to come as an anti-climax would be clumsy. John Savard ( teneerf<- ) http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm ###### From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Balrog Wings The positive view Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 17:31:19 -0400 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Lines: 27 Message-ID: <7qk6e2$krl$1@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> References: <37c7893f.5512780@news.mindspring.com> <7qbhau$1d7$2@news.worldonline.nl> <7qc1du$a4u$4@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <7qgs40$fo6$4@news.worldonline.nl> <7qhjsb$ii3$1@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <7qjhg2$6eo$1@weber.a2000.nl> Reply-To: "Conrad Dunkerson" NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.28.201 X-Trace: bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net 936221954 21365 12.79.28.201 (1 Sep 1999 21:39:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Sep 1999 21:39:14 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!wnmaster2!not-for-mail db wrote in message news:7qjhg2$6eo$1@weber.a2000.nl... > NO, indeed you cannot. You cannot positively conclusively > show that the "shadow like wings" _IS_ its wings. Conclusively, no I agree... you cannot. However, you also cannot conclusively show that this shadow is NOT what JRRT later refers to as 'its wings' - ergo, the earlier passage is relevant to how we interpret the latter. I consider the text inconclusive because JRRT could have been talking about BOTH a shadow that spread out like wings and later actual wings... he COULD have. It seems clumsy / unlikely to me, but he could have. However, ignoring the earlier text could change the actual / possible meaning. > Fancy footwork. But this is arguing for arguing's sake. Not really, I was trying to make the point that taking something out of context and declaring it a definitive evidence can produce results completely opposite of what was intended. I don't think we KNOW what was intended in this case, but ignoring the evidence against one point of view does not make that evidence go away. ###### From: "db" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Balrog Wings The positive view Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 17:45:44 +0200 Organization: A2000 Kabeltelevisie en Telecommunicatie Lines: 63 Message-ID: <7qjhg2$6eo$1@weber.a2000.nl> References: <37c7893f.5512780@news.mindspring.com> <7qbhau$1d7$2@news.worldonline.nl> <7qc1du$a4u$4@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <7qgs40$fo6$4@news.worldonline.nl> <7qhjsb$ii3$1@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: node11aae.a2000.nl X-Trace: weber.a2000.nl 936200514 6616 24.132.26.174 (1 Sep 1999 15:41:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@a2000.nl NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Sep 1999 15:41:54 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!pascal.a2000.nl!not-for-mail Conrad Dunkerson wrote in message <7qhjsb$ii3$1@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>... >Oh... so we can assume that 'it' is the Balrog when we are >quoting out of context but not that the 'wings' were >actually shadows which moved like wings? :) NO, indeed you cannot. You cannot positively conclusively show that the "shadow like wings" _IS_ its wings. Are you really saying that "its wings" refers to the shadow mentioned above? Really? >No, I entirely agree that it is silly to ignore the fact >that JRRT had just been speaking of the Balrog and thus we >can logically assume 'it' to be the Balrog. However, I >consider it just as silly to cut out other text relevant >to the meaning of the passage. If we ARE going to base >part of our analysis on text outside of the immediate >passage ('it' being the Balrog) then we should take ALL >relevant passages into account (shadow LIKE wings). That's what I did. "Its wings". That sentence refers to the one right before it, nothing else. > >What you are doing seems to me like saying that a passage >reading; > >"The Balrog had a shadowy emanation which reached out like >two vast wings. The Balrog did not in truth have wings, >but the shadow might be called such. It then drew itself >up to a great height and its wings were spread from wall to >wall." > >could ignore everything but "...its wings were spread from >wall to wall..." and thus 'conclusively show' that the >Balrog had wings. Ignoring the earlier text might allow >the evidence against Balrog wings to be discounted, but if >we are going to play that sort of game we logically should >not be able to define 'it' as the Balrog either. Fancy footwork. But this is arguing for arguing's sake. Nowhere is it said that it in truth did not have wings, and it says a lot that to you I seem to be saying this... as I never said or implied anything of the kind. In fact I try to make a case for not interpreting when there's no need. Tolkien was speaking of the Balrog when he wrote what I quoted. He would have phrased it differently had he not intended the Balrog to have wings. The Balrog cast a shadow. That shadow had a shape like two wings, it may even be caused by its wings, or not. Wether it was or not is irrelevant. If the shadow had not been cast at all, the rest of the paragraph would stand. And its wings would still be spread from wall to wall. db _________ Nothing is ever the same _________ Pls remove ".NoSpam" from email adres when replying _________ ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) Subject: Re: Balrog Wings The positive view Organization: The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Net Distribution: world Message-ID: <7qmevr$ok_018@Org.xenite.org> References: <37c7893f.5512780@news.mindspring.com> <7qbhau$1d7$2@news.worldonline.nl> <7qc1du$a4u$4@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <7qgs40$fo6$4@news.worldonline.nl> <37cd4d8f.2088403@news.prosurfr.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Lines: 15 X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenetserver.com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Complaints-To: admin@usenetserver.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 14:17:55 EDT Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 18:17:31 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!uunet!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!news-in.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news1.POSTED!Xenite In article <37cd4d8f.2088403@news.prosurfr.com>, jsavard@tenMAPSONeerf.edmonton.ab.ca (John Savard) wrote: >Now, why a creature with such _large_ wings was flightless - falling >like a stone, the best it could do was drag Gandalf along with its >whip - I suppose is another debating point. Whether the Balrog was capable of flight is not indicated by this passage, although if it needed those wings for flight it doesn't appear to have had the room to use them in the chasm. -- \\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web info@xenite.org \\// FREE! Watch Internet TV shows at Xenite.Org! //\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm] // \\ENITE.org............................................... ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) Subject: Re: Balrog Wings The positive view Organization: The Xenite.Org Domain -- Worlds of Imagination on the Net Distribution: world Message-ID: <7qmf4v$ok_020@Org.xenite.org> References: <37c7893f.5512780@news.mindspring.com> <7q48iu$27s_042@Org.xenite.org> <37cd4c3d.1750623@news.prosurfr.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Lines: 39 X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenetserver.com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Complaints-To: admin@usenetserver.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 14:20:39 EDT Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 18:20:15 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!uunet!zur.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!news-in.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news1.POSTED!Xenite In article <37cd4c3d.1750623@news.prosurfr.com>, jsavard@tenMAPSONeerf.edmonton.ab.ca (John Savard) wrote: >Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote, in part: >>In article <37c7893f.5512780@news.mindspring.com>, sonshi57@mindspring.com > (Douglas Henderson) wrote: > >>>Could someone please post the positive view for Balrog wings. I'm >>>just curious what it is. > >>J.R.R. Tolkien said the Balrog had wings. > >Although in a previous paragraph, he said the Balrog had a shadow that >looked like wings,... And in a previous paragraph to that he said the Balrog only looked like a great shadow. >...when he later said the Balrog had wings there was no connection with >the previous simile such as to imply that he was speaking even more >figuratively. Just as there was no connection with the previous simile concerning the overall appearance of the Balrog. >So I don't see any escape from accepting the Balrog did have wings. >I'd expect they were particularly big and terrifying wings, too, for >the mention of the wings to come after the mention of a wing-like >shadow; for the real wings to come as an anti-climax would be clumsy. The same is true of the Balrog: for it to be nothing more than a bit of darkness that only looks like a Balrog is not only clumsy, but absolutely pointless. Why make an issue of the wings at all, if they weren't really there, when Tolkien did precisely the same thing with the entire Balrog? -- \\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web info@xenite.org \\// FREE! Watch Internet TV shows at Xenite.Org! //\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm] // \\ENITE.org............................................... ###### From: "db" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Balrog Wings The positive view Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 10:28:27 +0200 Organization: A2000 Kabeltelevisie en Telecommunicatie Lines: 54 Message-ID: <7qo0k2$of5$1@weber.a2000.nl> References: <37c7893f.5512780@news.mindspring.com> <7qbhau$1d7$2@news.worldonline.nl> <7qc1du$a4u$4@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <7qgs40$fo6$4@news.worldonline.nl> <7qhjsb$ii3$1@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <7qjhg2$6eo$1@weber.a2000.nl> <7qk6e2$krl$1@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: node11aae.a2000.nl X-Trace: weber.a2000.nl 936347074 25061 24.132.26.174 (3 Sep 1999 08:24:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@a2000.nl NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Sep 1999 08:24:34 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!nntp.abs.net!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!newshub1.nl.home.com!news.nl.home.com!pascal.a2000.nl!not-for-mail Conrad Dunkerson wrote in message <7qk6e2$krl$1@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>... >> NO, indeed you cannot. You cannot positively conclusively >> show that the "shadow like wings" _IS_ its wings. > >Conclusively, no I agree... you cannot. However, you also >cannot conclusively show that this shadow is NOT what JRRT >later refers to as 'its wings' - ergo, the earlier passage >is relevant to how we interpret the latter. I consider the >text inconclusive because JRRT could have been talking >about BOTH a shadow that spread out like wings and later >actual wings... he COULD have. It seems clumsy / unlikely >to me, but he could have. He could have, and to me it strongly suggests he did. All these arguments I'm sure have been made before, but a shadow like wings might well, likely indeed have been cast by wings, right? But even if they weren't, that still in now way precludes the Balrog having actual wings. >However, ignoring the earlier >text could change the actual / possible meaning. True. However, leaving flamewars aside, I will always assume that when a passage is cited, all care is taken that nothing relevant was left out. I certainly would not omit parts that would significantly alter the meaning of a cited quotation. >Not really, I was trying to make the point that taking >something out of context and declaring it a definitive >evidence can produce results completely opposite of what >was intended. I don't think we KNOW what was intended in >this case, but ignoring the evidence against one point of >view does not make that evidence go away. I understand. The point was not well made (in this case), and certainly no attempt was made by me to cast a different light on a text by omitting part of that text. There was IMO no evidence to show. The shadow and the wings may or may not be related, but the existence of the wings is in my view established by the simple reference to them. You know, "its nostrils", "its wings"... I just don't see how you get around that. db _________ Nothing is ever the same _________ Pls remove ".NoSpam" from email adres when replying _________