🧙Gandalf and Durin's Bane

[Ithrynluin]

Woah, hold yer horses, Alcuin, this is not a court.

I was interested in the reasoning behind those statements, because they seemed to me to be heavy on speculation. Did I tell you yet I really enjoy reading your posts?

 

[Alcuin]

Woah, hold yer horses, Alcuin, this is not a court.

I was interested in the reasoning behind those statements, because they seemed to me to be heavy on speculation. Did I tell you yet I really enjoy reading your posts?

Well, thank you, Ithy! TTF isn’t a court, but Illuin makes a fair request, and one I can’t provide right now. I don’t have time to dig out all the citations, link them together into a strong argument, and defend them. But I think it’s an important enough subject to return to it later: when I read the material for the first time after Reader’s Companion was released, I was surprised. I think there is also some material regarding this in HoME, but that would require more time for research, too. So until I can do that, I’ll have to withdraw the statement and sit with a little egg on my face.

By the way, I don’t recall that there is a single statement that says, “Sauron knew about the Balrog, and so did Saruman,” so arguing that they did know about it requires some work.

Don't forget, if you cite material from the Reader's Companion to back your case, Include information on the original Tolkien sources that were used By the Author.

Is that a “rule”? I don’t quite understand: if we cite from Reader’s Companion, we must also cite all the references from the LotR text as well? That seems to be a peculiar burden for using Reader’s Companion.

 

[Gothmog]

Is that a “rule”? I don’t quite understand: if we cite from Reader’s Companion, we must also cite all the references from the LotR text as well? That seems to be a peculiar burden for using Reader’s Companion.

The problem with using a secondary source is that you are relying on the interpretation of someone other than Tolkien. On checking the original source others might come to a different opinion.

 

[Alcuin]

The problem with using a secondary source is that you are relying on the interpretation of someone other than Tolkien. On checking the original source others might come to a different opinion.

I agree, that would be of little use. In this case, however, Hammond and Scull have published Tolkien’s notes and timelines: the movements of the Nazgûl as they hunt Frodo from The Shire to the Fords of Bruinen, for instance; or the movements of Gollum as he follows Frodo from Moria to the Dead Marshes. Those, I think, are outside the realm of “opinion” and fall into the category of Tolkien’s working material. The references in such cases are obvious, “in my opinion.”

Reader’s Companion is only useful to the degree that it provides us a source for these working materials, which are both extensive and housed at two separate sites. (Most of them, I think, are in the library at Marquette, but not all.) Tolkien worked out phases of the moon; the weather; and most importantly to discussions of LotR, the movements and motivations of the secondary characters whose narrative we do not read in LotR. In that sense, Companion is a fundamentally different work from, say, Foster’s Guide to Middle-earth, which is a mixed compendium of reference and opinion.

 

[Illuin]

by Alcuin
Well, thank you, Ithy! TTF isn’t a court, but Illuin makes a fair request, and one I can’t provide right now.

Sorry I created such a stir. Me and my big mouth again . Actually, I’m just looking to engage in good conversation whenever the opportunity arises. I agree with you that the RC is a useful; genuine work (and fun as well); it’s just that I don’t remember reading that about our little subject; and skimming through, I can’t seem to find it now. Oh well, no biggie; just having some fun. By the way; I still can’t make out your avatar. What is that thing?

 

[Alcuin]

Sorry I created such a stir.

Don’t apologize! It’s a legitimate question, and a good request: I just don’t have time to chase down the citations, which would take several hours, and then write up all the arguments, which would take more hours, and then defend the position for a week or two while it was thoroughly vetted and debated. But I’d still like to revisit the subject later.

If anyone else wants to go looking, the citation about Saruman’s orcs leading the Moria orcs into Lórien to follow the Company of the Ring are in the RC material on Gollum’s movements, I think; there is either a strong implication or a direct statement in that material that Saruman knew about the Balrog beforehand, and learned of its demise from the orcs. That Sauron did not suspect Saruman of treachery until after Saruman concealed from him for several days that the Company had departed Lórien is also in Tolkien’s working papers cited in RC. That the orcs in Moria had been placed there by Sauron, who was thus aware of the presence and nature of the Balrog, is buried in HoME.

(Added: I think that the HoME material also suggests that Sauron was content with the Balrog’s being in Moria because it effectively eliminated its use to his enemies; that the Balrog was not subservient to Sauron; and that “Sauron’s” orcs in Moria were effectively the Balrog’s; but these issues I may have confused with boards in which I have cited material in the furtherance of arguments for or against those statements: so while you may find those as three further declarations by Tolkien in the HoME material, then again, you may not. My memory on these three issues, what is in the books, and what was on the boards, is no longer clear.)

By the way; I still can’t make out your avatar. What is that thing?

That’s the legendary Black Beast of Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh!

 

[Illuin]

Now I’m embarrassed; the Python fan that I am. Man I’m getting old (especially feel that way today ). Can’t believe I forgot that. Last time I saw The Holy Grail I was living in Naples Florida in 86-88’. Seems like yesterday.

by Alcuin
I think; there is either a strong implication or a direct statement in that material that Saruman knew about the Balrog beforehand, and learned of its demise from the orcs.

There is some “implied” (though somewhat of a stretch) statements in “The Hunt for the Ring” in UT as well. Well, I’ll agree with you at least with the “implication” theory. If I were to make an educated guess; I “might assume” that they both were aware “before“ DB's demise; but after DB's demise; if someone were to bet me a nice chunk of change; I would bet our two villains were certainly aware. There is just no concrete documentation.

 

[Gothmog]

I agree, that would be of little use. In this case, however, Hammond and Scull have published Tolkien’s notes and timelines: the movements of the Nazgûl as they hunt Frodo from The Shire to the Fords of Bruinen, for instance; or the movements of Gollum as he follows Frodo from Moria to the Dead Marshes. Those, I think, are outside the realm of “opinion” and fall into the category of Tolkien’s working material. The references in such cases are obvious, “in my opinion.”

Reader’s Companion is only useful to the degree that it provides us a source for these working materials, which are both extensive and housed at two separate sites. (Most of them, I think, are in the library at Marquette, but not all.) Tolkien worked out phases of the moon; the weather; and most importantly to discussions of LotR, the movements and motivations of the secondary characters whose narrative we do not read in LotR. In that sense, Companion is a fundamentally different work from, say, Foster’s Guide to Middle-earth, which is a mixed compendium of reference and opinion.

And in using a secondary source without any information as to the original source material you are assuming that everybody is conversant with the book you are citing and therefore knows what sources the authors used. Certainly in the case where something is only implied (even if very strongly) noting in general what the original sources are can help those less conversant with the book and author (myself included) to judge the cited information.

 

[Alcuin]

There is some “implied” (though somewhat of a stretch) statements in “The Hunt for the Ring” in UT as well. Well, I’ll agree with you at least with the “implication” theory. If I were to make an educated guess; I “might assume” that they both were aware “before“ DB's demise; but after DB's demise; if someone were to bet me a nice chunk of change; I would bet our two villains were certainly aware. There is just no concrete documentation.

Exactly. Properly framed, though, and with thorough documentation (for which you asked), the argument becomes much stronger; and combined with the working material from RC that Tolkien used to trace the movements of Gollum, the Nazgûl that Legolas shot down along the Anduin, the extensive material on the movements of the orcs, and the material on the back-and-forth between Sauron and Saruman (the background of Sauron’s initial, mistaken query of Pippin, “Why have you neglected to report for so long?” for which extensive reference can also be found in HoME; but as best as I can recollect only the timelines in RC), the argument becomes much stronger.

A “strong argument” cannot become a positive assertion, which is what a direct quote from Tolkien would provide. But I think we can eventually get to the “strong argument” or even “very strong argument” positions.

Here’s another thing to consider: the Balrog is a kind of bad-guy counterweight to Bombadil.

1. Neither one leaves the confines of his narrow domain.
2. Each substantially alters the course of actions within his domain.
3. The “other side,” while (possibly) aware that something odd is present, is unaware of its true nature and power.
4. Neither Bombadil nor the Balrog is “allied with” or under the control of anyone else: each pursues his own ends.
5. Despite that, each consistently pursues a course of action that definitely favors one side or the other.
6. The Hobbits encounter Bombadil after Gandalf has been delayed by Saruman. The Company encounters the Balrog after either Sauron or Saruman blocks the passage through the Redhorn Gate.

I don’t think any of that was deliberate on Tolkien’s part. It’s just an observation I can offer in lieu of serious research right now.

In fact, assuming that Bombadil is a Maia (at least within the confines of the story; admittedly, this is a controversial position), there are three “good” Maiar and three “bad” Maiar in the story. The three good Maiar would be Gandalf, Radagast, and Bombadil; and the three bad Maiar would be Sauron, Saruman, and the Balrog.

Now I’m embarrassed; the Python fan that I am. Man I’m getting old (especially feel that way today ). Can’t believe I forgot that. Last time I saw The Holy Grail I was living in Naples Florida in 86-88’. Seems like yesterday.

I know the feeling: I’m feeling it right now. Does “” mean that today is your birthday?

-|-​

[noparse][[/noparse]Added afterwards due to cross-posting by Gothmog and me…[noparse]][/noparse]

And in using a secondary source without any information as to the original source material you are assuming that everybody is conversant with the book you are citing and therefore knows what sources the authors used. Certainly in the case where something is only implied (even if very strongly) noting in general what the original sources are can help those less conversant with the book and author (myself included) to judge the cited information.

Fair enough, but only to a degree. You do not require this of material cited from 12 volumes of HoME, UT, Ósanwe-kenta (which was edited and annotated by Carl Hostetter from Tolkien’s notes, just as RC is edited and annotated by Hammond and Scull), or any of the other books that I can think of.

If you find a citation from RC that is unclear, why don’t you ask for further reference, just as you would from any other non-LotR, non-Hobbit, non-Silmarillion source?

[noparse][and even later…][/noparse]

There is a great deal of material in Companion that is opinion, I agree; it is generally offset or marked in some way. My primary interest in the book is in its references to Tolkien’s otherwise unpublished notes for construction of the storyline: movements, motivations, and so forth. I am less interested in Tom Shippey’s oft-cited opinions.

 

[Illuin]

by Alcuin
In fact, assuming that Bombadil is a Maia (at least within the confines of the story; admittedly, this is a controversial position), there are three “good” Maiar and three “bad” Maiar in the story. The three good Maiar would be Gandalf, Radagast, and Bombadil; and the three bad Maiar would be Sauron, Saruman, and the Balrog.

I guess this is an ideal example of why the Maiar were the “lesser” of the Ainur; considering there was only one “bad” Vala and fourteen “good” Valar.

Of course I have my own fun little unsubstantiated theory of Bombadil, but your theories are fun too .

I know the feeling: I’m feeling it right now. Does mean that today is your birthday?

Unfortunately, it does. But at least I'm grateful that I’ve miraculously made it through another year in the dungeons of Great Eye, um; I mean the Big Apple.

 

[Prince of Cats]

Happy Birthday, Illuin! Shake off those frown's and save em for a confrontation, today you should be treating yourself

And as for RC, I think I have to buy it

 

[Illuin]

by Prince of Cats
Happy Birthday, Illuin! Shake off those frown's and save em for a confrontation, today you should be treating yourself

And as for RC, I think I have to buy it

Thank you Prince! I jest; age is good in some ways (but bad in most). As far as the RC; if you have read much of Tolkien’s works and know them well; it’s not worth it (it’s second nature; you will be 10 steps ahead of it; and at times disagree with it). But if you are a bit new to Tolkien and maybe a bit unfamiliar with his “other works” like HoME and Unfinished Tales; it’s like CliffsNotes and a quick learn. The key is really knowing The Silmarillion (especially); and Unfinished Tales. If you are familiar with those; there is no need to spend the money. The last three volumes of HoME (X-XII...10-12) are recommended as well (though the other volumes; well, if you have read Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, and Unfinished Tales; are interesting; but redundant). I personally did not learn anything new from the RC (but it is still fun; and a quick reference tool). You will likely say; “Ok, I’ve read this already; and rejected versions are not necessary" (similar to HoME; other than volumes X-XII). Anyway, thanks for the B-Day pep talk. I needed that .