Do Balrogs Have Wings?

[Kuruharan]

...a Balrog with three bottoms.

and as we see the bal rog even with wings could use a whip in FOTR....in not saying the movie should be a basis of argument but it is kind of like a demonstration to show it is possible.

I am going to attempt to put this as mildly as I can. Reality goes out the window when you move into the realm of digital graphics. (On the other hand, what are we talking about here...)

That was not a demonstration of anything except the skill of the digital artists.

[The Saucepan Man]

I tend to place the greater value on instinctive reader reaction (my own in particular) than I do on cold logical analysis after the event.

Killjoy.Au contraire. It is the application of cold logic which risks killing the joy of enchantment. :p :)

[Kuruharan]

It is the application of cold logic which risks killing the joy of enchantment.

Isn't this whole thread a testament to the contrary? ;)

[The Saucepan Man]

The shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.The wing-like shadow is obscuring the Balrog and preventing us from seeing its true shape.

... and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall ...Ah, there we are! As it draws itself up to a great height (hmm, how high is great?), it flexes its actual wings and they are no longer obscured by the wing-like shadow.

:p :D

[Morsul the Dark]

Ok leaving the like two vast wings line behind

I have here, absolute proof that balrogs had wings. In the chapter The Great River, when the wraith on wings arrived over the east bank, Gimli specifically stated, "...too much it reminded me of the Shadow of Moria, the shadow of the Balrog." These were of course described as having bat-like wings. Bat-like wings? What? Are you hearing this? Then of course Frodo went on about it being cold and deathlike instead of fiery and demonic. But as long as Gimli can see a gigantic fiery creature, with a dark cave as a background, I'm going to trust his vision and not how all you "Anti-wingists" interpret the story. Why oh why would a winged creature remind him of a Balrog? Because the balrog had wings of course. And don't try to deny it by saying that the balrog was like shadow and the creature was shadow against the sky. He didn't mean that. Definitely not. After all, the Balrog of Khazad Dum lit up with fire and wasn't dark for as long, and if it were the case that he meant that, he would have said, "that reminded me a little of the shadow of Moria," not too much. Boom, think about that. And if you'd like to argue it, go ahead. I think a few of us "Pro-wingers" are up to the challenge.

I think this although not (as it says) absolute proof is definately a strike in the right direction why would it remind gimli of a balrog?

[Mister Underhill]

re: The use of "like" -- if you do your homework on this topic, you'll find that Tolkien frequently uses "like" in ways that don't support the "like only means a simile" argument -- especially when he's introducing villains. I've linked to old threads and posts often enough in the past if you're really interested.

Kuru, I love you man, but you're all wet on this wing speculation business. That "narrow opening of the door" bit is one example of the selective reading of that article oblo posted. If you look back, you'll see that the door is only partly open when Frodo & Co. enter the Chamber of Mazarbul, which after all isn't the Broom Closet of Mazarbul. The "narrow opening" means the narrow opening of the nearly closed door.

As to the "realistic" (hahaha) analysis of Balrog anatomy, where its wings "must" go, how it would "need" to wield the whip, etc., I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, since we'd both have to completely make up our arguments to have an argument, and if I want to have a made up argument I can think of other topics I'd like to make up my arguments about.

What do no wingers suppose this "shadow" is that the Balrog exudes out into wing-like shapes anyway? I've always thought the filmmakers got the concept right, at the very least, in their portrayal of the flame and shadow part of the Balrog. What do no-wingers say is forming wing-like shadows if it's not wings? Is the Balrog exuding something? What? What anatomical device do we suppose can form whatever is exuded into wing-like shapes?

[Folwren]

davem did a good job pointing out all the 'likes' in the books and proving that points, but Morsul wasn't hoping to disprove the like in that sentence, rather the two.

Originally posted by Morsul the Dark:
like two vast wings

you use like to support your argument why would tolkien say like

but heres the other half of the sentence:

like two vast wings

why use the word two...this implies that the shadow spread out from him in two directions. not in all directions why would they only go in two directions unless they were wings?

Quite frankly, in my opinion, I think he said 'like two vast wings' simply because it sounds better than 'like wings'. Part of what makes a writer good is being able to add description that will raise emotion from the reader in the parts that need it. Tolkien's trying to show this thing that's over here absolutely terrifying Gimli and Legolas and he's a chance to explain it's shadow in comparing it to wings. What's more, he can make it even more impressive by adding the word 'vast'. But wings come in pairs, and 'vast' needs to have something to hang onto, so he adds the 'two'.

------------------------------

Chances are. all these thoughts about doors being able to be wedged closed with broken bits of weaponry, small openings, and a huge Balrog being able or not able to fit through it, probably didn't even occur to Tolkien. Why should they? Who do you know (personally or otherwise) that ever wrote stuff that was able to be torn apart, word by word, and proved one way or another? I think Tolkien wanted a big Balrog, but he didn't think as far as, 'is it going to be able to go through that door in the that chamber?'

-----------------------------

Originally posted by The Saucepan Man:
Ah, there we are! As it draws itself up to a great height (hmm, how high is great?), it flexes its actual wings and they are no longer obscured by the wing-like shadow.

I knew it'd be only a matter of time until someone found that quote and started using it. But it still doesn't make sense to me.

[the guy who be short]

Answered in post 38 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=368615&postcount=38), post 39 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=368615&postcount=39).

Two shadowy beings. Compredrez?

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by JRR Tolkien
... and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall ...

My question is then this why is it that text-wise non-wingers depend on this one word "Like"

for the record...you see someone far off let's say..Frank

You can use the similie to describe something unclear and once it is clear the simlie is now real instead of speculation

"That looks like Frank"
"Like two vast wings" speculation they look like wings but one can not be sure

then they come into view

"It is Frank"
"and its wings were spread from wall to wall" they are wings our speculation was right

[Kuruharan]

That "narrow opening of the door" bit is one example of the selective reading of that article oblo posted. If you look back, you'll see that the door is only partly open when Frodo & Co. enter the Chamber of Mazarbul, which after all isn't the Broom Closet of Mazarbul. The "narrow opening" means the narrow opening of the nearly closed door.

Hmm...I may be willing to partially concede a small point. For some reason I'd simply assumed that the Fellowship had opened the door to look about before they stepped in (this seeming to be the natural thing to do). However, I suddenly realize that it does not actually say that. I still think it is a reasonable assumption, but...

I don't think it really impacts the argument that much because when the door was shattered the orcs were still only able to leap in one at a time.

As to the "realistic" (hahaha) analysis of Balrog anatomy, where its wings "must" go, how it would "need" to wield the whip, etc., I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, since we'd both have to completely make up our arguments to have an argument, and if I want to have a made up argument I can think of other topics I'd like to make up my arguments about.

You mean more so than what we've already been discussing about imaginary creatures? ;)

[Folwren]

Alright, alright, so it appears as though our argument for the 'like' may be falling through (though I don't believe it). Here yet is another stumper that won't allow me to believe that they do have wings.

Why didn't the Balrogs fly? I mean, seriously. Flap their wings, get above Gandalf and his blasted bridge, skip the evil wizard who's trying to kill us, and eat the elf and dwarf who are too scared to use their weapons.

A fantasy writer won't create a creature with wings and make it some Nature mistake and not be able to fly with 'em. In a made up world with made up creatures, when a creature has wings, he uses them.

[the guy who be short]

There's an article on flightless balrogs here (http://www.barrowdowns.com/articles_balrogs.php). It's generally assumed that the wings were made of shadow, making flight impossible. Decoration.

[Mister Underhill]

What does that mean, "made of shadow"? They can't be made of shadow -- shadow isn't a literal substance. Websters: "shadow: 1 : partial darkness or obscurity within a part of space from which rays from a source of light are cut off by an interposed opaque body".

It seems more likely to me that all this "shadow" business isn't some mystery substance, but is instead typical of how Tolkien uses it elsewhere. For instance, the first real encounter with the Black Rider: The sound of hoofs stopped. As Frodo watched he saw something dark pass across the lighter space between two trees, and then halt. It looked like the black shade of a horse led by a smaller black shadow. The black shadow stood close to the point where they had left the path, and it swayed from side to side. Frodo thought he heard the sound of snuffling. The shadow bent to the ground, and then began to crawl towards him.

Once more the desire to slip on the Ring came over Frodo; but this time it was stronger than before. So strong that, almost before he realized what he was doing, his hand was groping in his pocket. But at that moment there came a sound like mingled song and laughter. Clear voices rose and fell in the starlit air. The black shadow straightened up and retreated. It climbed on to the shadowy horse and seemed to vanish across the lane into the darkness on the other side. Frodo breathed again.No one ever argues that the Nazgûl emit some mystery shadow substance. Tolkien uses this kind of construction repeatedly. It's the same usage at the Bridge.

[davem]

But it must have been made of 'shade' 'cos Tolkien says it was like shade :p

It looked like the black shade of a horse led by a smaller black shadow

The 'shadow' in the case of the Balrog is an unnatural 'substance' - it is 'cast' by the 'Dark Fire' of the Balrog - which isn't ordinary fire.

Its appearance may be manipulable to some extent by the Balrog, but it is 'Shadow'.

[Folwren]

The sound of hoofs stopped. As Frodo watched he saw something dark pass across the lighter space between two trees, and then halt. It looked like the black shade of a horse led by a smaller black shadow. The black shadow stood close to the point where they had left the path, and it swayed from side to side. Frodo thought he heard the sound of snuffling. The shadow bent to the ground, and then began to crawl towards him.

Oh, well, if Tolkien did it here, then he may well have done it at the Bridge -

Everyone knows that the Nazgul wasn't a black shadow. But he calls it so several times in this passage (which Mister Underhill so kindly dug up for our use) - after saying it 'looked like' shadow. Couldn't it therefore be the same with the Balrog? The shadow looked like wings...so instead of saying shadow again, he used wings in the quote:

... and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall ...

Stab in the dark there...tear it apart if you like. It's only half baked.

[wilwarin538]

Here is why I believe Balrog's have wings.

When Tolkien said this:

...and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.

It is abviously a simile. It also said the shadow was "about" it, not a part of it. That sentence would make any one say that Balrogs don't have wings. But then he says this:

...and its wings were spread from wall to wall. (emphasis mine)

Tolkien says "its" wings, so the wings belonged to the Balrog, when the shadow 'wings' were just a simile. If Tolkien was continuing with the metaphorical wings why did he say 'its'? He could have just said 'the' which would have told us he was continuing the simile.

[davem]

The Balrog is a creature whose 'nature' is an amalgam of shadow & flame. Shadow & flame (ie in Balrog terms its fea & hroa) are what it is. The shadow is its physical counterpart. As 'shadow' it can take any shape the Balrog wishes it to have. It is repeatedly referred to as 'a shadow & a flame'.

[Mister Underhill]

My point was about Tolkien using "shadow" as a technique rather than as literal shadow stuff, but there's a usage contradicting the no-wingers in the same passage: "But at that moment there came a sound like mingled song and laughter." The sound is mingled song and laughter.

But I'm gonna have to take a break from the Balrog wars -- I've been over all this more times than I care to think about.

[Folwren]

Originally posted by Mister Underhill:
My point was about Tolkien using "shadow" as a technique rather than as literal shadow stuff, but there's a usage contradicting the no-wingers in the same passage: "But at that moment there came a sound like mingled song and laughter." The sound is mingled song and laughter.

Totally different context there, ol' chap. Try again.

[Morsul the Dark]

Well firstly Mr.Balrog in khazadum flying over gandalf would be bad because gandalf is very mighty the balrog isn't stupid he knew he would have to go through him not over him...and once they were falling a balrog can't just flip over and flap its wings.it was falling with gandalf on its stomach meaning his wings were down....maybe you've seen a bird fly upside down but I haven't. Not to mention it's been in moria for who knows how long not much flying to be done in a mine. the wings would have lost the muscle to fly and as I said in a earlier post the wings were more likely meant for gliding not flapping if you get my meaning

[Kuruharan]

Well firstly Mr.Balrog in khazadum flying over gandalf would be bad because gandalf is very mighty the balrog isn't stupid he knew he would have to go through him not over him

This is hardly self-evident. A lot of times the advantage in a fight goes to those who are fighting from above.

[Morsul the Dark]

True but the rest of the argument seems to have you(as you would put it) humming and hawing :p

[Kuruharan]

The rest of your argument has already been so badly beaten to death in so many places so many times that I did not think I had to bother with it.

However, if you insist...

and once they were falling a balrog can't just flip over and flap its wings.

It's been my observation that falling things can often spin around in their descent.

it was falling with gandalf on its stomach meaning his wings were down

I seriously doubt that Gandalf was sticking to one spot on the Balrog if he could possibly help it. If there is one thing that is obvious it is that they were fighting as they were going down. Movement is a critical factor in fighting. Gandalf staying in one spot makes it much easier for the Balrog to whack away at him. Gandalf moving about would have made it much more likely that the pair of them would have been spinning about like crazy, giving the Balrog plenty of opportunity to get upright and use its wings (which it does not have).

Not to mention it's been in moria for who knows how long not much flying to be done in a mine. the wings would have lost the muscle to fly and as I said in a earlier post the wings were more likely meant for gliding not flapping if you get my meaning

The rest of this gliding business and muscle atrophy are not even approaching convincing (or even relevant) arguments for those of us who think it solves all the problems in the text to believe that Balrogs don't have wings. They just sound like more non-textual rationalizations and assumptions that pro-wingers have to build around their arguments to sustain their deeply cherished belief.

[Morsul the Dark]

. They just sound like more non-textual rationalizations and assumptions that pro-wingers have to build around their arguments to sustain their deeply cherished belief.

and talking about how big they would be folding isn't aa rationalization a bit hypacritical that...but i don't respond to fight you but rather to aid you

it say Like wings...so later when it says the wings it most likely(when I thought about it) was just referring to the smoke

I mean this...We have already discussed the fact that the smoke is like wing later on it would be too difficult (well more annoying) to say the wing like smoke reached to each side of the chamber its easier to refer to the smoke as wings since that is what it was described as before

I will still picture balrogs with wings because it's more romnatic but textually it seems they don't

[Kuruharan]

and talking about how big they would be folding isn't aa rationalization a bit hypacritical that

No. It's to point out the problems with the idea in the interest of having a discussion.

[VanimaEdhel]

I'm so torn - by wings do we mean physical or does it also connote a kind of presence and "aura", if you will, around the Balrog that's wing-like?

[Thinlómien]

I voted for no, because I haven't read anything that says that they have wings.

[Morsul the Dark]

on a lighter note I asked my manager(a so-called lotr fan) whether she thought balrogs have wings or not and this so-called fan said something that would offend any self-respecting fan....

she said that the balrog had wings...(but the reasoning is the bad part)...they havew wings because balrogs are actually dragons! :eek:

I was appauled

as i said no matter where you stand on this issue we at least know dragons and balrogs are not the same

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Although, Morsul, one has to ask (perhaps for another topic) were Dragons captains over Balrogs or vice versa? :p

they have wings because Balrogs are actually dragons!

But even then, not all dragons have wings. :D

The whole Balrogian Wings debate is hard to resolve. In reading this topic, I personally have changed my opinion thrice, from no wings, to wings, and back to no wings again. It would be interesting if someone found a letter by the professor telling us a) how may wings Balrogs have and B) who Bombadill is, thus stopping all this silliness.

[Morsul the Dark]

maybe bombadil is a balrog? think about it he turns off the fireworks and boom hes a hobbitish woodsman hes kind of like the human torch :p ...sorry off topic

[Eonwe]

I voted for no, because I haven't read anything that says that they have wings.

dido for me. we can talk all we want of doorways, caverns, dimentions, problems, shadow, smoke, fire, light sources, folding, gliding wings, wings but can't fly, one wing, how big the guys are, all these opinions, but nowere can i desern any mention of solid, actual, wings.

the only really important issue that i see is if balrogs are bound to one fixed state. if that is so, we are stuck with whatever the book says pertaining to wings. if they are not, than (i think) we can conclude that they can take whatever shape they want. but i've always thought they had one form, otherwise (if i was a balrog) i would transform and fly away, if i was menaced by such a power as gandalf, or ecthilion of the fountain.

so there. ;)

[Reg Pither]

No wings. 'Like' wings is exactly what is described, although there is obviously confusion in some people's minds when the later phrase mentions 'its wings'. But that is all it is - a moment of confusion and ambiguity. Once you read the text again, it is clear that Balrogs do not have wings.

As simple as that. :D

However, I always imagined them having wings because of all the illustrations and models of them in that state. And they do look soooo good with them, as evidenced by PJ's version in the films. So, although I know that Balrogs didn't actually have wings, I don't mind seeing them portrayed with them.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Shelob sent me the following via PM and I just thought that it should appear here for posterity's sake:

Alright, I ran across the soon-to-be quoted text earlier today while trying to keep my friend entertained. For somewhat obvious reasons it immediately reminded me of your Do Balrogs have Wings (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11534) thread. I would have posted it straight there but didn't know whether it had been posted/referenced already or how appropriate/fitting it would be so I figured I'd send it to you first and you could then do with it as you please. Enjoy (and, just in case you don't catch it, it's a parody of the book If You Give a Mouse a Cookie.)

If you give a Balrog wings in a movie…
Pippin
(A lament over the ongoing epic debate, dedicated with kudos to Peter Jackson)



If you give a Balrog wings in a movie, fans will immediately begin to debate whether or not this is true to the books and whether it's stated explicitly in the books that Balrogs have wings or not.

If they begin to argue over whether it is or is not true to the books, one side will undoubtedly bring up the topic of artistic license and how the Balrog description is open to interpretation.

If one side brings up the topic of artistic license and interpretation, Tolkien purists will snarf this up and say, "If it's not perfectly clear and in the book. Darn it, it shouldn't be in the movie."

If the purists hack down artistic license and say something must be in the books in order for them to like it in the movie, someone from the opposing side will almost certainly ask them about what they think Peter Jackson should have done with other parts, such as the long gap between the time Bilbo leaves and Frodo leaves and whether we should have had a bunch of scenes in which nothing happened.

If this is brought up, a heated debate will probably start about whether this is on-topic or off-topic, with some people arguing that it's connected because it's got to do with how far one can go with artistic license which is obviously connected with the topic of whether PJ had the "right" to give the Balrog wings, or whether it is completely unrelated and if the post should simply be deleted.

Assuming that the thread is decided to be on-topic enough to not be deleted (if it were deleted of course a huge argument would ensue involving a lot of angst and probably some hurt feelings over casually deleted opinions and possibly a huge fandom-wide angst-fest), someone will eventually come along and suggest that, in case some people haven't done so, they should go read through The Silmarillion to see if Balrog wings are mentioned there or at least implied. This person is probably at least trying to be helpful, and if the readers in the group are desperate, they will probably comb over The Silmarillion in hopes of coming across something they maybe missed before when they read it the last time (or few times).

If this suggestion is taken up, people will go off to read and will come back with the side for artistic expression pretty much empty-handed, but with the purist's side armed with annoyance that reading about The Silmarillion made them read about Glorfindel, and that causes them to become more agitated by Peter Jackson's deletion of that character. This does not put them in a good mood at all.

If the purists are not in a good mood, they will probably begin to rant completely off-topic-ly about how Peter Jackson should have shown more respect to the books by not replacing Glorfindel as was done in the cartoons, and how Tolkien must be rolling in his grave at the double deletion of this character.

Once this off-topic thread has been posted, someone from the opposite side will probably post back saying that it's artistic expression, and although it's sad that Glorfindel lost out twice in a row, it had to be done for the sake of the film to move the story along and to avoid countless character introductions and giving Arwen a role that went beyond staying home to sew a banner.

This remark might cause some people to say, "It's the principle of the thing and that darn it, if Tolkien didn't say Balrogs had wings, they should not have been given wings."

This will probably start some people in on "Well, the books don't say one way or the other if the Balrogs have wings or not. We really can't say. So I don't think the movies would be any different if they did or did not have wings because either way you read the books, Gandalf still dies the same way."

Which of course will start some purists snarfing about how the point is not whether it's okay to have wings, it's about whether it's true to the books.



~~~

BTW: in case I haven't done so already, I'm going to call it: Balrog's Have Wings.

[bilbo_baggins]

Um, who says Balrog's wings have to be physical limbs? I mean, who says we even have to see them? Balrogs (though I have never met them personally) have that sort of essence that tells you they are winged. Just that bigness, that presence that ethereal quality that makes up their 'wings'. It's just that the 'wings' are an aspect of the Balrog's spirit rather than its physical form.

EDIT: And besides, you can't have a wingless being looking like some ugly wolf standing on hind legs in a faceoff with Gandalf. No way :p

[Folwren]

Well, why not? There are many big things without wings, my dear bilbo baggins. Morgoth for one, and all the other Valar, there there are trolls and ents, you know.

Besides that, if Balrogs had wings, they wouldn't go tumbling off mountain peaks like the one that Glorfindal fought in the Sil. It just doesn't make sense for them to have wings. I haven't heard of people making up creatures with wings in fantasy that can't fly. Wings, to writers, are there to be used. Balrogs weren't said to have flown, even when it could've saved their lives.

-- Folwren

[Son of Númenor]

Besides that, if Balrogs had wings, they wouldn't go tumbling off mountain peaks like the one that Glorfindal fought in the Sil. It just doesn't make sense for them to have wings.This, as has been said before, could be a problem of inertia. If a large creature is unexpectedly flung from on high, the force of gravity may render it unable to spread its wings and maneuvre itself during the free fall. The issue has also been raised that these battles could have produced immense physical and psychic strain on the balrogs; in other words, they may have been completely spent by the time they fell.I haven't heard of people making up creatures with wings in fantasy that can't fly. Wings, to writers, are there to be used. Balrogs weren't said to have flown, even when it could've saved their lives.Be careful -- this is a logical fallacy. 'Tolkien' does not equal 'writers'.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Didn't Gothmog drown in the Fountain of Gondolin after being impaled on Ecthelion's helmet? I suspect that his shadow wings got soggy and weighed him down. ;)

It was the Balrog that Glorfindel fought that fell.

I have never read either actual passage. Would anyone care to submit them for analysis?

I believe that Gothmog was gravely injured from his wound and the fountain extinguished his fire, weaking him enough to kill him. I don't think he drowned.

I think Balrogs had wings, but they were for show. That, or they couldn't support the heavy Balrogs when they were falling straight down without any preparation.

[The Sixth Wizard]

I (being an impatient person) have read only the first and last pages of this thread, but has Tolkien ever actually described a Balrog other than in LOTR? He says they are only fire-demons. Thus, are all Balrogs actually the same? Being Maiar, could they all alter their form at creation to suit their own wishes? Maybe the only Balrog with wings was in LOTR but didn't use them being caught up with Gandalf.

Another note, I don't know many Morgoth-creatures that could fly, barring the dragons. Manwe is the lord of the air and had birds in his dominion, but Morgoth was not. Perhaps the Balrogs could not fly because of this hatred of the air and sea, they bar themselves to the ground.

I had more opinions regarding this, I'll look again when I have the time.

SIXTH WIZARD.

[Aiwendil]

The Sixth Wizard wrote:
Being Maiar, could they all alter their form at creation to suit their own wishes? Maybe the only Balrog with wings was in LOTR but didn't use them being caught up with Gandalf.

It's certainly not clear that this is true, but it has long been my opinion. The Ainur were what the Eldar called "Ealar", souls that could "clothe themselves" when they wished but that were not tied to one physical form. Unless the Balrogs became permanently incarnate for some reason, they would have been capable of taking on any appearance.

It is possible for an Eala to become permanently incarnate - this happened to Morgoth and to Sauron and perhaps to Melian (and the Istari were also semi-permanently restricted). But I don't know of any evidence that it happened to the Balrogs.

[Morsul the Dark]

well that seems to be a 'politician answer' I stick t my "Frank" idea


Morsul the Dark Quote:
Originally Posted by JRR Tolkien
... and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall ...


My question is then this why is it that text-wise non-wingers depend on this one word "Like"

for the record...you see someone far off let's say..Frank

You can use the similie to describe something unclear and once it is clear the simlie is now real instead of speculation

"That looks like Frank"
"Like two vast wings" speculation they look like wings but one can not be sure

then they come into view

"It is Frank"
"and its wings were spread from wall to wall" they are wings our speculation was right

[Kuruharan]

"That looks like Frank"

Oh, wait...it is not Frank. It is his hideous and foul-tempered wife Bertha who looks remarkably similar to Frank in this really bad light! Everybody run away!!

[Finrod]

I'm just thinking about this and I voted that the balrogs do have wings; but not necessarily can fly. If I remember correctly; when the Balrog attacks it gets described as having wings at one point.Don't quote me as I don't have the books with me. But a question that is getting asked is if the wings worked. If they did work why couldn't he just fly away from Gandalf in mid-air while they are falling. I don't think everyone will ever be happy with the answer.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Uh oh.....here we go again...... :smokin: :D

[Folwren]

If the balrog in the LotR had wings (and could fly) why did he even bother to use the bridge while Gandalf was holding it?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I learned something interesting recently....

A couple of weeks ago we had a bird trapped in the stovepipe to our old wood-burning stove. We couldn't get to it through the grilles and so we kept hoping it would fly out. Sadly, it never did and expired after a couple of days.

I was curious as to why it couldn't fly out and so I asked a friend of mine who teaches biology if he could help. He explained to me that only certain flying insects can truly hover, which is the ability to remain steady in the air or to go up or down without any lateral movement. Birds and bats, it seems, can only fly if they are going forward as well as up or down....

So hmmmm......if the balrog had bird- or bat-like wings they would have been useless in the enclosed space of the hall and more than useless, even hindrances, in the confines of the chasm. Now if it had wings like a bee or a dragonfly it could have easily flown to safety....now there's an amusing image.

[Boromir88]

Fordim, which is exactly why the argument that 'If the Balrog had wings why didn't it fly' doesn't work. However, what does work is this argument, which should totally disprove of a wing theory:

His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.~Bridge of Khazad-dum
There is no other meaning or interpreation of this sentence except the fact that it is a simile. Tolkien is comparing the shadow of the balrog as being like wings. Also note, it doesn't say here that the Shadow of the balrog looked like wings, but that the shadow had reaches out like something had wings would unfold their wings.

Picture a bird again When it's just sitting still it's wings are folded up, however when it goes to 'fly' the wings reach out and unfold. That's the comparison here that's being made.

So, Tolkien is comparing the shadow of the balrog to wings. But it's not in the sense that the shadow had took the form of wings, and looked like wings, but the way it 'reaches' out was like two vast wings.

Then a little bit further down we have this quote:
It stepped forward slowly onto the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall.~ibid
Here there is no 'like' or 'as' but it's still a metaphor, more specifically it's an extended metaphor. It is pretty bad writing technique to use the word like or as to want to compare two different things. So, what authors like to do is use extended metaphors and this is most similar in poetry (where entire stanza or poems could just be long extended metaphors). The poet/author doesn't want to use the word like/as to draw a comparison everytime so they set up the comparison (using like or as) and keep the comparison going longer, keep it on, hence the name 'extended metaphor.'

What we have here is Tolkien clearly sets up that the shadow of the balrog were like wings, and he keeps that comparison going in the second quote.

Let's say you don't even believe me and you want to deny the common literary devices of writing. Let's think about it from a logical stance as well. We quite clearly know the height of a balrog. The most Tolkien ever conceived a balrog as being was twice the size of Glorfindel...however these are Tolkien's earliest drafts and by LOTR it's quite clear that Balrogs were roughly man-size, maybe a little more, maybe a little less.

This would put the Balrog at around 6-7 feet. Now what we have here in Moria is a chasm, a chasm is an area that is wider than it is long. That would mean the Balrog would have to have absolutely humorgous wings if he actually had literal wings that spread out from wall to wall. This would be extremely inproportianate. Something that was man-size and man-shape, as we are told, it just can't be possible for the Balrog to have a wingspan of say 70 feet (a conservative guess).

You also bring up mobility issues, the Balrog was quite agile, it 'leaped' it 'jumped' and I just can't see a 6-7 foot creature, with wings that when full spread would be over 10 times the size of his body, to be able to move around the mines as Durin's Bane is able to.

There you have it. If you don't believe in common writing devices authors use (similes, metaphors, extended metaphors...etc)...it's still not even logically possible for a Balrog to literally have wings. As if it did, the wings would not be proportionate to his body, and it would be terribly hard for him to be mobile in the mines carrying around wings at least 10 times the size of his body.

[Mithalwen]

But Boromir, lots have things have wings but cannot fly, penguins, emus, chairs, theatres, houses...and according to some people... buffalo ... ;)

[Raynor]

This would put the Balrog at around 6-7 feet. Now what we have here in Moria is a chasm, a chasm is an area that is wider than it is long. That would mean the Balrog would have to have absolutely humorgous wings if he actually had literal wings that spread out from wall to wall. This would be extremely inproportianate. Something that was man-size and man-shape, as we are told, it just can't be possible for the Balrog to have a wingspan of say 50 yards (a conservative guess).I believe this is the EoA theory, right? There might be two explanations - either not all balrogs are the same size (I don't see a problem with that, the balrogs being self incarnate and what not) - either we have the size of the wings (or of their shadows if you will) is distorted in an environment with a rather fuzzy light.

As far as the simile is concerned, there is another case where a simile introduces a being with wings:
Suddenly a shadow, like the shape of great wings, passed across the moon. The figure lifted his arms and a light flashed from the staff that he wielded. A mighty eagle swept down and bore him away.

[Thinlómien]

But Boromir, lots have things have wings but cannot fly, penguins, emus, chairs, theatres, houses...and according to some people... buffalo ... ;)Penguins fly in the water. *a decisive nod*

[narfforc]

Sentence One reads thus: His enemy halted again, facing him, and THE SHADOW about it reached out LIKE two vast wings. This reminds me of shadows by candle-light in a dark room.

It does not say the shadow reached out AS two vast wings, or its wings reached out like two vast shadows, why not?

Sentence Two reads thus: It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly drew itself up to a great height, and its wings (the ones that are built of the shadow that Tolkien tells us of) were spread from wall to wall.

Now this is either exactly what Tolkien tells us the wings are made of, or he made a big mistake. He is either telling us one thing or he is contradicting himself.

I believe there are no wings, you are perfectly entitled to disagree, but this argument has raged for decades, and they that hath the strength of mind and willpower to do so can read the same argument over and over and over again in this thread, and still not get the answer.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Well, narfforc, Christina Scull and Wayne G. Hammond certainly agree with you. Your argument and mine is the one you'll find in their reader's companion to LotR. Obviously they read my posts above while researching their book.

[narfforc]

One can only add that Tolkien the Philologist would have known that the word LIKE, can only mean :

A. Resembling

B. Similar to

C. In the characteristic of.

D. In the manner of.

If we are wrong, why did Tolkien use that word.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I've cited this argument so many times now that I can't even remember where Mister Underhill first made it on the Downs, but I can see I need to cite it again...

When the Fellowship is paddling down the Anduin and a Nazgul FLIES OVERHEAD (they are all LOOKING UP at something that BLOTS OUT THE STARS so it obviously has working wings), Gimli (who was there at the chasm and saw the balrog) says that it reminds him of the balrog.

At this point, nobody says anything like, "Uhhhh.....Gimli.....the balrog we saw didn't have wings.....what are you, stupid or something?"

It seems impossible to thing anything other than balrogs have wings and that they work after reading that section. Anyone who wants to disprove this is going to have to explain to me why

a) Gimli (who saw the balrog) thinks that something flying in the air reminds him of a balrog

AND

b) why nobody in the Fellowship (who also saw the balrog) doesn't contradict his sentiment or feel the need to correct him.

And, once more, because I never get tired of pointing this out: sometimes, people say that something looks LIKE something because it is that something.

"Hey!" said the man on the traintracks in the dead of night, "that light which is coming toward me rapidly along the tracks looks a lot LIKE an approaching train. Thank goodness, it only looks LIKE a train, and is not totally visible and entirely apprehensible AS a train as it would be in the day, for now I have nothing to worry about. Something that merely looks LIKE a train as it hurtles toward me on the traintracks clearly presents no danger to me. If the light were approaching me AS a train I should be worried and step off the tracks but as things are" *splat*

:p

[Lalwendë]

narfforc wins the cash, the girl and the erm...speedboat (that'll come in handy for getting to Sunderland Point then, eh?), because what Gimli says is:

'I cannot,' said Gimli. 'But I am glad that the shadow came no nearer. I liked it not at all. Too much it reminded me of the shadow in Moria--the shadow of the Balrog,' he ended in a whisper.

Thus showing that wings are clearly a subliminal ancestral message of our descent from the treetops when still homo erectus or summat or other and loom large in our imaginings and likewise in those of Dwarves which proves they're analgous to the human species and, and ......... Oh, basically that Gimli is a big girl and he's afraid of his memory of a big scary shadow that looked like it had wings.

:p

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

A big whimpy girl who is so afraid of a land-locked shadow that when he sees something flying he says "OOH NOO -- that sure looks like that other shadow"??!!??!!

Like the guy who gets splatted by a train suddenly developing a fear of airplanes.....?!?!?!?!?

And the only thing that was specifically shadowy about the balrog were its wings....so if the FLYING shadow resembles the balrog shadow.....hmmmmm....

[Lalwendë]

He's clearly a big girl's blouse, look, he even whispers the word Balrog, like when you're talking about the dog's upcoming boosters and you lean in across the tea table and say "You know, the V. E. T....." in a low whisper. This shadow reminds him of another shadow. But it doesn't remind him of the Balrog or he'd have said "...the Balrog." not "...the shadow of the Balrog."

Bah. Even his name gives him away.

Gimli

Girli

Tell me you could tell them apart from a distance....

:p

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Being, as I am, a proud Canuck and an even prouder son of a Prairie boy....Gimli (http://www.rmgimli.com/) has different associations for me!

"Girlie" indeed! Just look at that statue!

(Last Time: It's a FLYING shadow.)

[Lalwendë]

Yeah, but just look at that emblem with the big Pelican on it. It's a bird, so Gimli is also...a bird.

(love it by the way!)

OK, so you see this ruddy huge winged shadow in the dim light of Moria and wet your (not literally, 'your') Dwarf pants with fear. Then see it's not got wings, and it's slightly more comforting but you don't, frankly, care as long as you get outta there; in fact you don't hang around for long enough to really examine said beastie, you just get an impression of it, but the main one is the first view, with wings, that caused you to wet yer Dwarf britches. Then later you see a big winged shadow in the sky and immediately think "%$£*! It's like that thing I thought I saw in Moria!"

Our Girli of course later admits to Legolass (explains his fears that he displayed when he went "eeek!" and grabbed Pippin's hand) that he thought it was that Big Scary Shadow again. All that's missing really is Boromir and Aragorn acting like the snidey big brothers, taunting him and saying "Hey! Did the boogie man scare you?"



:smokin:

[Folwren]

Fordim!! Do you mean to say that you think Balrog's DO have wings?

Humphrey Boggart. Gimli was reminded of the Balrog probably because of the fear and dread he felt as the Nazgul flew overhead. The Nazgul stirred some fear or terror that was much like the fear and terror that the Balrog had brought on. He didn't say 'I think it was a Balrog' he said 'It reminds me of the shadow of the Balrog.' And, if you would look the quote up, Frodo did tell him, 'It wasn't a Balrog.'

-- Folwren

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Gimli was reminded of the Balrog...as the Nazgul flew overhead.

You said it. Not me.

Frodo did tell him, 'It wasn't a Balrog.'

The obvious presence of working wings not being enough to confirm that for Gimli himself.


Lal: did you notice the town motto for Gimli, "The captial of New Iceland"?

[Folwren]

Of course I said it. Why shouldn't I say it? Fordim, don't be daft. This discussion is not about whether or not the Nazgul can fly, it's whether or not the Balrog has wings. What I didn't say was that Gimli was reminded of the Balrog because the Nazgul was flying overhead, as you twisted my words in order to make it sound like I said that.

Please, don't mishandle what I say unless you're an enemy in Werewolf.

-- Foley

[Lalwendë]

Yes, you can imagine Frodo sitting there, disconsolately chucking small stones at a row of pine cones propped up on a log, bored out of his brains, as he hears Girli's tale about this scary shadow yet again. "Enough already!" he thinks. "I can't be bothered arguing this time." So he just mutters, with a sigh, "It wasn't a Balrog."

***

I love the way that the municipality of Gimli has not one, but two (count 'em!) interactive Garbage Calendars! I mean, one would be indulgence enough, but two?! I don't know about anyone else, but with stuff like that on offer, I'm packing up the house as we speak.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Hey, when one lives where bears are a constant and unrelenting nuisance, garbage collection is a MAJOR issue. And we're talking real Canadian bears here -- big, hungry and wild -- not those silly European bears, no bigger than a puny cougar (which you also don't have in Europe).

I'm telling you, it's a jungle over here.

In addition: like Fell Beasts and unlike hobbits balrogs have functioning wings.

[Folwren]

In addition: like Fell Beasts and unlike hobbits balrogs have functioning wings.

As Sam so well and so truthfully put it: "You're 'opeless.'

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Sorry for serial posting, but this is interesting...

A quick search through the OED uncovers the following:

bal: a Cornish dialect word for a collection of mines; usually used in compound with other words (i.e. bal-girl)

rog: a verb of scandinavian origin (from 'rugga') which means to shake, tear or tug at forcibly to the point of breaking...

So...

balrog: Mineshaker, or minebreaker (with or without functioning wings).

[Servant of Shadows]

There may be debate about this topic, but it is true, Balrogs have wings. Their hulking forms prevent them from full flight, but they allow them to soar into the sky for a small amount of time in a bound. My username is in gratitude of those beings who have fallen into darkness. My theory is that the Balrog is a Fallen Angel and sent into the firey pits, thus its wings are burned in small portions making it also impossible for long distance flights.

[Lalwendë]

bal: a Cornish dialect word for a collection of mines; usually used in compound with other words (i.e. bal-girl)

rog: a verb of scandinavian origin (from 'rugga') which means to shake, tear or tug at forcibly to the point of breaking...

So rog might be something a terrier might do? There you go. The Balrog is plainly no kind of winged demon, it's a ruddy little yappy dog that lives underground. The Fellowship were obviously fooled like the Orcs in Cirith Ungol were by Sam's shadow. Balrog? Pah, wee dog more like. And one big optical delusion.

Or looking at the word rugga, it could have been a prop forward from the Moria Marauders who got left behind in the mines when they evacuated. Poor bloke had only gone to fetch his ball back from a chasm where it had been thrown during a try, and he came back to find everyone gone. No wonder he was mad.

Hey, when one lives where bears are a constant and unrelenting nuisance, garbage collection is a MAJOR issue. And we're talking real Canadian bears here -- big, hungry and wild -- not those silly European bears, no bigger than a puny cougar (which you also don't have in Europe).

I'm telling you, it's a jungle over here.



Yeah, but we've got something far worse than bears. A beast that roams the streets of a night in search of a fix, armed with pyrotechnics and abusive language and easily identifiable by its tracksuit bottoms tucked into its socks and its Burberry baseball cap. Chavvus Brittanicus. The Common Chav. Don't leave your wheelie bin out round here or it will be up-ended. :p

[Folwren]

Two questions to by answered by you all before I give my next argument.

1. How big, again, did someone say the Balrog was here on this thread?

2. How large was the dwarven hall that they were running through? In the movie, it's massive, but it might not have been THAT huge in the book. . .

-- Folwren

[Boromir88]

There might be two explanations - either not all balrogs are the same size (I don't see a problem with that, the balrogs being self incarnate and what not)~Raynor
I'll agree that that is possible. For let's take a look at the quote of the Balrog Glorfindel fought:
"Then Glorifindel'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
twice his stature)"~BoLT II, The Fall of Gondolin
Here, it is specifically referring to the Balrog Glorfindel fought...it was 'that' demon. It's not referring to any other possible sizes of balrogs.

Though I think it's well established through out Tolkien's drafts in Khazad-dum that Durin's Bane was approximately man-sized:
"A figure strode to the fissure, no more than man-high and yet terror
seemed to go before it."~HoME VII: The Bridge of Khazad-dum
Also:
Alter description of Balrog. It seemed to be of man’s shape, but its
form could not be plainly discerned. It felt larger than it looked.~Home
VII: The Bridge of Khazad-dum
Because of the shadow and manipulation of darkness that Balrog had, it appeared larger than what it actually was. A look through LOTR and Tolkien's drafts in HoME VII, stays consistantly referring to Durin's Bane as being around man-high and man-shape. It may appear larger, but really it wasn't.

I think it is important to note that this is only referring to Durin's Bane, not the other Balrogs. So, I think it's possible to assume that Balrogs could come in different height, as you point out they are incarnate and can assume their own forms. Though, I would say that Durin's Bane was approximately man-high, as that is consistant with the drafts and into LOTR. Therefor, it's also reasonable to assume that the Balrog Glorfindel fought can still be twice his height, as it was only referring to that Balrog, no other.

either we have the size of the wings (or of their shadows if you will) is distorted in an environment with a rather fuzzy light.
That all depends upon who we have talking. Is it the omniscient narrator (the author) who's giving us the account and the details, or is he using one of his characters to retell us the details? If it's the characters that are doing the telling for us, than I think it is possible to assume that in the dark environment the conception could be skewed.

A big whimpy girl who is so afraid of a land-locked shadow that when he sees something flying he says "OOH NOO -- that sure looks like that other shadow"??!!??!!~Fordim
Problem here Mr. Fordim is you are comparing apples to oranges. That since Gimli compared the Nazgul flying over-head to the Balrog, that must mean Balrogs have wings. This isn't the case, because it depends upon the comparison that is being made. Lalwende and Folwren have both pointed this out. Let's look at the entire picture here, instead of focusing on just the little frightened quote of Gimli. first I'll start with Gimli's reaction when he first sees the Balrog:
Gimli stared with wide eyes. 'Durin's Bane!' he cried, and letting his axe fall he covered his face.~Bridge of Khazad-dum
Now compare that to Gimli's reaction when he sees the Nazgul and is reminded of a Balrog:
'Praised be the bow of Galadriel, and the hand and eye of Legolas!' said Gimli, as he munched a wafef of lembas. 'That was a mighty shot in the dark, my friend!'
'But who can say what it hit?' said Legolas.
'I cannot,' said Gimli. 'But I am glad that the shadow came no nearer. I liked it not at all. Too much it reminded me of the shadow in Moria - the shadow of the Balrog,' he ended in a whisper~The Great River
I adore Gimli, but let's be frank, he has no clue what he's talking about. It's dark outside, he can't see squat, he praises Legolas for shooting something in darkness that he can't see himself. So, Gimli has very little clue of what is going on.

Lal and Folwren both note that there is a difference here. Your argument is that since the Nazgul was on a winged creature, and Gimli was reminded of the Balrog, this must mean the Balrog has to have wings, or Gimli wouldn't have made such a comparison. You point out an example of a train and an airplane, but you see here, the comparison is flawed.

I can make several comparisons between a train and an airplane, yet know they both have different qualities that make them different. For example, both are made of some sort of metal, both are very very loud, both transport cargo, or people...etc. There's some similarities I've come up with between the two. Just because a train is strictly a land transportation device, and a plane is by the air, doesn't mean there are no comparisons between the two. Obviously a reasonable person will not think it's an airplane on the train tracks. But you can certainly compare the two in several ways.

That's all we have here. Gimli is making a comparison, as Folwren points out, between the fear he remembered in Moria.

First off, Gimli covered his face and cried, when the Balrog came, how do we know what he actually saw or if he got a good image of it at all? So, we don't even know Gimli's picturation of a Balrog...but he does know the fear that he felt when the Balrog came. Shadow can go hand and hand with fear. Especially with the Nazgul who we are told their fear is enhanced at the night time, in shadow:
'Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness.'~Letter 210
This encounter happened at night where the Nazgul's fear would be enormously enhanced. In which case, as others have noted, Gimli was comparing the shadow that the flying creature caused, to the Shadow of Durin's bane. He's not comparing anything at all to wings or not. Just as one can make similar comparisons between a train and a plane, one is transportation on the ground, the other threw the air....no logical person will assume it's a plane coming at them on train tracks....though their qualities can be compared in several instances. Just as they have different qualities about them, which make them two different things.

There may be debate about this topic, but it is true, Balrogs have wings.!Servant of Shadows
Durin's Bane was not a hulking beast, as has been provided he was about man-high and man-shape. He didn't have horns, he didn't have a giant tail or hooves. He was man-shape (meaning if something was 'man-shape' you wouldn't think he had the body of a rhinoceros)...and he was roughly man-size (around 6 feet).

Not only do we have actual quotes to prove this, but it just doesn't make sense logically either. Durin's Bane leapt, and jumped across fissures...meaning he was quite agile. He also fought Gandalf for several days from the very depths of Moria to the highest peak...with solely his whip (as Gandalf broke his sword) vs. Gandalf's sword. (You have any idea how difficult it is to fight with a whip against a sword?) So besides quotes to prove the height of Durin's Bane, it just doesn't make sense that a 'hulking beast' could be so agile.

My theory is that the Balrog is a Fallen Angel and sent into the firey pits, thus its wings are burned in small portions making it also impossible for long distance flights.
If that's what you want to believe, that's your opinion go ahead. But if you want to argue your opinion than you'll have to provide reasonable support for it...as if not than your opinion simply remains...your opinion.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Ai Ai!

[Boromir88]

Ai Ai!

Is that when I say... 'A balrog! A wingless Balrog is come!' :p

[Folwren]

Well, I think I'll say no more. If Boromir88 can write such a wonderful post and still not convince you, then I don't think I could, either. There was another argument I'd come up with, but I don't think it will be necessary.

-- Folwren

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

Wings or no wings, the quote below is the only thing I've ever read that changed the way I imagine Balrogs when I read about them. Not sure if I appreciate that or not, obloquy! :)

I think in general people make demons out to be much more beastly than they are. The extent of a fallen angel's carnality is stooping to the level of Man. We're not talking about a wild animal who'll bark and growl and roar and drool. Tolkien was very severe with Bakshi's version of the Bridge because Tolkien's intention was for the Balrog to maintain a dignified and sinister silence. There's no need for eye spots, or horns, or spikes, or scary wings. Durin's Bane was intimidating enough to even Gandalf when he had not even seen him yet.

Think about what we're talking about, folks. These are ancient, mighty fallen spirits, not guard dogs.

As for wings, balrogs started as one thing in JRRT's mind and migrated to something else. Hence the confusion. I like H.I.'s ideas about Balrog vs. balrog too.

Regardless, NO VOTE from me because I think later Balrogs had wings, couldn't use them for flight, but could fly if they chose to. A simple "yes" or "no" vote doesn't suffice.

[Flavius]

In the beginning, when the greater spirits went down to Arda, they could walk unclothed. If they had appearance at all, it was of their own choosing. It is debatable as to whether or not those choices were fixed when middle earth was sundered from Valinor and the west.
Personally, I believe that the form a Balrog chose was a reflection of their nature and was therefore full of fire and darkness. As you well may know, Melkor often strode the halls of middle earth in whatever form he chose. He is, however, much greater than a mere Balrog. Only at the end did he continually use the dark terrible form he is best known for and even then - it was most likely still his choice.

Balrogs have wings if it suits them. As pure spirits, they can most certainly fly but have no need for wings.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Personally, I believe that the form a Balrog chose was a reflection of their nature and was therefore full of fire and darkness. As you well may know, Melkor often strode the halls of middle earth in whatever form he chose. He is, however, much greater than a mere Balrog. Only at the end did he continually use the dark terrible form he is best known for and even then - it was most likely still his choice.

But, of course, Melkor lost the ability to change his form in time. Due to one thing and another and his trying to kill everyone.
The counter argument is that Melkor imprisoned the spirits in the bodies of the Balrogs and they were shrouded in shadow and flame. Of course, this has probably been discussed before in this thread but I am, at this time, too tied to go a-looking. :o

[obloquy]

In the beginning, when the greater spirits went down to Arda, they could walk unclothed. If they had appearance at all, it was of their own choosing. It is debatable as to whether or not those choices were fixed when middle earth was sundered from Valinor and the west.
Personally, I believe that the form a Balrog chose was a reflection of their nature and was therefore full of fire and darkness. As you well may know, Melkor often strode the halls of middle earth in whatever form he chose. He is, however, much greater than a mere Balrog. Only at the end did he continually use the dark terrible form he is best known for and even then - it was most likely still his choice.

Balrogs have wings if it suits them. As pure spirits, they can most certainly fly but have no need for wings.

Friend, this is a fine post and makes good sense. Unfortunately it leaves out an important phenomenon: incarnation. Melkor, Sauron, and the Balrogs all eventually lost the power to shed their corporeal form and "reclothe" that they had in their beginnings. This was due to overindulgence in activities reserved for the Incarnates, and to the overuse of certain forms. Their state was similar to that of the Istari, who shared their discarnate nature in their beginnings; the only difference being that the Istari were intentionally incarnated by the Powers, rather than experiencing it as a side-effect of their activities.

You'll hopefully forgive me for not posting all of my sources for this information. Instead I'll merely direct you here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=5879).

[Aiwendil]

Obloquy wrote:
Melkor, Sauron, and the Balrogs all eventually lost the power to shed their corporeal form and "reclothe" that they had in their beginnings.

We have numerous quotes indicating that Melkor and Sauron became permanently incarnated. But do we have any certain evidence that the Balrogs did? I know that a good case can be made for your position (as indeed you did in the post you link to), but I'm afraid I can't see the possibility that the Balrogs still could change their shape as being inarguably disproven. Or perhaps there is some quote that has slipped my mind.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

If there are not quotes, I think that it stands to reason that they would be permanently in their bodies. Or else, they would not be identified as Balrogs but 'evil Maia', their physical appearance would label them as Balrogs instead. That is how it strikes me, anyway...

[obloquy]

Obloquy wrote:


We have numerous quotes indicating that Melkor and Sauron became permanently incarnated. But do we have any certain evidence that the Balrogs did? I know that a good case can be made for your position (as indeed you did in the post you link to), but I'm afraid I can't see the possibility that the Balrogs still could change their shape as being inarguably disproven. Or perhaps there is some quote that has slipped my mind.

No, you're right. We don't have any explicit textual support for the idea that Balrogs were permanently incarnate, but I think the finality of their deaths is an important indication. If Durin's Bane had been merely a clothed spirit, his defeat at Gandalf's hand would really have done very little good; likewise with Glorfindel's Bane.

Additionally we recognize the affinity Tolkien's mythos have with biblical stories of the corruption of angels to the service of the devil. In those stories the angels were corrupted not just by affiliating themselves with Satan, but by indulging in activities that were reserved for true incarnates, particularly sex relations. While this is not evidence in itself, Tolkien makes the specific point that an eala could become bound to its hroa by habitual indulgence in such activities (he specifies eating and begetting offspring), and it seems unreasonable to presume that these corrupted Maiar (who were said to be corrupted by dark gifts, if I remember correctly) would have abstained more assiduously than their masters.

[Formendacil]

If there are not quotes, I think that it stands to reason that they would be permanently in their bodies. Or else, they would not be identified as Balrogs but 'evil Maia', their physical appearance would label them as Balrogs instead. That is how it strikes me, anyway...

Which is exceptionally ironic when one considers that the most debated thing about balrogs is their appearance... as this thread goes to show, we don't even know that.

[mhagain]

What I found interesting, and what doesn't appear to have been picked up on (although admittedly I couldn't bear to read the whole thread) was the quote "With a terrible cry the Balrog fell forward, and its shadow plunged down and vanished".

The key point here is the difference between "fell" and "plunged".

What we have is a shadow like wings, which seems to be detachable from the main body of the Balrog. Remember, here the Balrog is only beginning to fall forward, whereas the shadow is already well down into the depths.

So I voted "no".

Wings, definitely not.

Jetpacks, now that's a "maybe"...

[Finduilas]

Tolkien is a writer, and a very good writer, too. He started with His shadow stretched like wings for his description of this new creature he was introducing. When you first explain a new character you stick with your description or follow it up with something like, "His shadow which had appeared as wings were then shown to be real wings."

Also, if I am not mistaken, the chasm which Gandalf and the Balrog fell into was HUGE. If the Balrog had wings he would have flown up there, instead of falling. If you argue that the chasm wasn't large enough, then when Gandalf was killing him on top of the mountain, why didn't he see he was loosing and fly away?

You could say that he had wings, but couldn't fly, but no writer puts wings on a creature just for looks, and then forget to say that he has wings just for looks.

We should look at what Tolkien wrote, not what we think he meant. If we do, Balrogs don't have wings.

--Fin--

[Raynor]

"What a day for a daydream..."
If the Balrog had wings he would have flown up there, instead of falling.
...
If you argue that the chasm wasn't large enough, then when Gandalf was killing him on top of the mountain, why didn't he see he was loosing and fly away?In normal circumstances, yes. Those times, however, he was fighting a wizard, whose power matched, at in the beginning, even that of Sauron, cf. Unfinished Tales. Thus, he may not have had the chance to get away from Gandalf, or Gandalf intentionally prevented that.

[Finduilas]

Okay, so that is a possibility(sp). But what do you say to my other arguements?

[Raynor]

Okay, so that is a possibility(sp). But what do you say to my other arguements?I believe they rest more on consideration of style rather than 'evidence'. Since this is more subjective, I would refrain from commenting on that, since it is not my field.

[Finduilas]

I believe they rest more on consideration of style rather than 'evidence'. Since this is more subjective, I would refrain from commenting on that, since it is not my field.

As far as I have been able to tell, there is no evidence either way, and I think that looking at style would be the best way of doing it. Since Tolkien doesn't state it either way straight out, logic is the only way to "prove" anything.

--Fin--

[The Saucepan Man]

Since Tolkien doesn't state it either way straight out, logic is the only way to "prove" anything.In the tussle between logic and my mind's eye, the latter wins out every time.

Hence, Balrogs have fully functioning, albeit rather shadowy and unwieldy, wings. :p ;)

[Kuruharan]

In the tussle between logic and my mind's eye, the latter wins out every time.

Take THAT all who say that humans are rational creatures!!

[The Saucepan Man]

Take THAT all who say that humans are rational creatures!!It gets worse - my mental image was primarily influenced by the picture of a Type VI (I think) Demon in the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manual, circa 1979. :rolleyes: :D

[Kuruharan]

It gets worse - my mental image was primarily influenced by the picture of a Type VI (I think) Demon in the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manual, circa 1979.

Turn in your Official Tolkien Fanboi card at once!!!

[The Saucepan Man]

Oh the shame of it ... :(

[narfforc]

The evidence for Balrogs having Wings is rather Shady.

[Finduilas]

Lol. I will admit that Balrogs do look better with wings, but I seriously think they didn't have any. But really, what sensible auther would do what people think Tolkien must have done to have winged Balrogs?

This is kind of off the subject, but I can't think of where else to post it, when Gandalf broke his staff on the bridge, did he fight the rest of his battle with out using any more of his power/magic? And when he overcame the Balrog by breaking his sword, was the Balrog also bereft of his power, and did they fight the rest of the battle on merely fighting abilities? Just wondering.

--Fin--

[Boromir88]

This is kind of off the subject, but I can't think of where else to post it, when Gandalf broke his staff on the bridge, did he fight the rest of his battle with out using any more of his power/magic?~Finduilas
We aren't given a great amount of detail about how the fight went, it's more of a vague and generalized description (retold by Gandalf).

Gandalf had his staff and Glamdring. The Balrog had a sword and a whip. Gandalf's staff is broken, and The Balrog's sword is broken...of course leaving with Gandalf to fight with his sword and the Balrog to fight with his whip. (And as a side note, it is extremely hard to fight with a whip - up close- so you can kind of picture how tough a foe the Balrog was). Anyway here's Gandalf's description of the 'battle' that took place:
'We fought far under the living earth, where time is not counted. Ever he cluted me, and ever I hewed him, till at last he fled into dark tunnels...In that despair my enemy was my only hope, and I pursued him, clutching at his heel. Thus he brought me back at last to the secret ways of Khazad-dum: too well he knew them all. Ever up now we went, until we came to the Endless Stair.'
[...]
'There upon Celebdil was a lonely window in the snow, and before it lay a narrow space, a dizzy eyrie above the mists of the world. The sun shone fiercely there, but all below was wrapped in cloud. Out he sprang and even as I came behind, he burst into new flame. There was none to see, or perhaps in after ages songs would still be sung of the Battle of the Peak' Suddenly Gandalf laughed. 'But what would they say in song? Those that looked up from afar thought that the mountain was crowned with storm. Thunder they heard, and lightning, they said, smote upon Celebdil, and leaped back broken into tongues of fire. Is not that enough? A great smoke rose about us, vapour and stream. Ice fell like rain. I threw down my enemy, and smote it in his ruin.'~The White Rider
That's all that's said about the fight between Gandalf and Durin's Bane...I hope it helps and make of it what you will. :)

[Sardy]

Apologies if this is a naive or ill-informed question... but is anyone in a position to ask Christopher Tolkien (or an authority in the Tolkien Society) to settle the dispute? I would be willing to take CT's informed opinion as law... :)

[obloquy]

Apologies if this is a naive or ill-informed question... but is anyone in a position to ask Christopher Tolkien (or an authority in the Tolkien Society) to settle the dispute? I would be willing to take CT's informed opinion as law... :)

If C. Tolkien could settle this dispute unequivocally then he would have more publishing to do: a lot of people would want (demand?) to see the text from which he drew his conclusion. Barring unpublished material, C.'s informed opinion is no more authoritative than those presented in this thread (though it may be more "informed").

[Boromir88]

Well, Sardy, from my view there is no dispute...and the only reason there is 'dispute' is because some like to base their visualization of a Balrog off of D&D and therefor are forever manipulated into believing Balrogs actually did have wings. (:::cough:::SPM:::cough:::: ) :p :rolleyes:

[the phantom]

a lot of people would want (demand?) to see the text from which he drew his conclusion. Barring unpublished material, C.'s informed opinion is no more authoritative than those presented in this thread (though it may be more "informed").
Ah, but what if CT can tell a story like this- "One day I asked my daddy, 'Why didn't the Balrog just fly away?' and Dad answered 'Balrog's don't have wings, son.' "

[The Saucepan Man]

some like to base their visualization of a Balrog off of D&D and therefor are forever manipulated into believing Balrogs actually did have wings. (:::cough:::SPM:::cough:::: ) Then again, I believe that Gary Gygax and co based their Type VI Demon on Tolkien's Balrog, seeing as it wielded a whip and a flaming sword ...

[ElentariGreenleaf]

I say yes, but they cant fly with them *nods* that's my theory ^_^ I have no evidence to back up my claims tho :p

[Finduilas]

I say yes, but they cant fly with them

I don't think that Tolkien would create a creature with wings that couldn't fly. After all, he only had, say maybe 100 creatures, while in this world there are... millions? but only a very limited amount have wings and can't fly.

[Boromir88]

Then again, I believe that Gary Gygax and co based their Type VI Demon on Tolkien's Balrog, seeing as it wielded a whip and a flaming sword ...
Perhaps the whip and the flaming sword was the only connection Mr. Gygax was making to Tolkien's balrogs. :p

But seriously, most artists will draw pictures that get people captivated, interested, and 'wowed' even if it means neglecting 'accuracy.' As we all know gigantic horned demons with enormous wings is far more appealing than a man-sized opponent that could manipulate fire and shadow. I mean we just have to watch the movies to see what people think 'looks' better. :D

I don't think that Tolkien would create a creature with wings that couldn't fly.~Finduilas
I think you're on the right track, but the question is why would the Balrog choose wings if they can't be used for flight?

One of the 'pro-wingers' arguments is well there are animals with wings but can't fly (penguins, emus...and etc). That's true, but the wings of these animals still serve a purpose to them.

Balrogs being Maiar chose their own form (as Sauron did)...if they did choose a form with wings...what would be the purpose if not for flight? Therefor, it wouldn't make any sense as to why a Balrog would choose a form with wings yet were unable to fly. As there would be no purpose for the wings so why would they assume a form with wings? :rolleyes:

Also, what has gone unresponded to is the size of the 'wings' (if they were literal wings). Durin's Bane was approximately 6 feet tall...The area where Gandalf confronts the Balrog is referred to as a 'chasm,' a chasm by definition is twice as wide as it is long. The Bridge spanned 50 feet, so this would mean the width of the chasm was at least 100 feet. If they were literal wings, than you must also take this literally: and its wings were spread from wall to wall (The Bridge of Khazad-dum). This would mean that an approximately 6 foot Balrog would have a 100 foot wingspan. Why would that make any sort of sense? Finally, take into consideration the Balrog's agility and it's ability to get through all the passage ways and tunnels of Moria. How can a creature with gigantic wings when spread were literally from 'wall to wall' (in a chasm) be able to manuevre (and manuevre to the ability that it does) through the mines?

[Alphaelin]

Jetpacks, now that's a "maybe"...



Or maybe propellers.

[darkcorsair]

I think it's clear that Balrogs gave the impression of winged creatures(Underhill's thing with Gimli thinking the flying creature was a Balrog and Frodo stating otherwise).

That's all,

and for the record I didn't vote.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I think it's clear that Balrogs gave the impression of winged creatures(Underhill's thing with Gimli thinking the flying creature was a Balrog and Frodo stating otherwise).

Interesting note, though, it does not help the real matter...

Because we all know that Balrogs gave the impression of winged creatures. The point is, if it was mere impression, or real wings...

[ElentariGreenleaf]

Well, ok, valid point about Tolkien not creating something with wings that can't fly.

Maybe they could originally fly, but over time they lost the use of their wings. I mean from their age, not through de-evolution. I mean, that Balrog that Gandalf blocked in Moria must have been ancient. I always imagine Balrogs to have wings like bats, so perhaps when a Balrog gets old the membranes start to get brittle and break so they can't fly any more. Either that, or all that fire eventually burns them away, lol. Though, were they fiery in the book? Its been so long since I've read it ^^;


Because we all know that Balrogs gave the impression of winged creatures. The point is, if it was mere impression, or real wings...


Hmm, perhaps Balrog's don't actually have wings, but perhaps something on their backs that look very much like wings. Possibly some kind of defence from attack? I mean, some Butterflys' wings have false eyes on them for their predators will attack their wings and not their body. Perhaps Balrogs "wings" were not meant for flying but as a distraction for an attacker? An intelligent attacker would perhaps try to disable wings to stop the target from flying off.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Maybe they could originally fly, but over time they lost the use of their wings. I mean from their age, not through de-evolution.
If anything, I would likely imagine them losing their wings because of their turning to evil, like for example Sauron or Morgoth lost the abilities to appear in different shapes later then.

I mean, that Balrog that Gandalf blocked in Moria must have been ancient. I always imagine Balrogs to have wings like bats, so perhaps when a Balrog gets old the membranes start to get brittle and break so they can't fly any more. Either that, or all that fire eventually burns them away, lol. Though, were they fiery in the book? Its been so long since I've read it ^^;
The wings were not fiery, but shadowy:
...and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings...


Hmm, perhaps Balrog's don't actually have wings, but perhaps something on their backs that look very much like wings. Possibly some kind of defence from attack? I mean, some Butterflys' wings have false eyes on them for their predators will attack their wings and not their body. Perhaps Balrogs "wings" were not meant for flying but as a distraction for an attacker? An intelligent attacker would perhaps try to disable wings to stop the target from flying off.
It's an interesting opinion, though I believe it was mentioned here by some as a possibility - but I find the idea of wings providing "distraction" quite inventive.

[Folwren]

Boromir...I am utterly confused. Didn't you vote that Balrog's do have wings? And yet you seem to speak for those of us who think they don't... It it's an attempt at sarcasm, it's not working.

-- Folwren

[The Saucepan Man]

As we all know gigantic horned demons with enormous wings is far more appealing than a man-sized opponent that could manipulate fire and shadow. I mean we just have to watch the movies to see what people think 'looks' better.Precisely. Hence, many people will, when they first read that passage (possibly influenced by Tolkien art etc) imagine a Balrog with wings. My point about the mind's eye trumping logic is relevant here. The impression conveyed by a text might be very different from its technical meaning, when logically deconstructed.

Whether Tolkien intended his Balrogs to be winged remains a moot point, but I would hazard a guess that many pro-wingers (and certainly myself) formed an impression of a winged Balrog on first reading the relevant passage and are now either disinclined or unable to reject it, regardless of the logic of the argument to the contrary. In my own case, my original impression was reinforced over time by artistic portrayals of the Balrog.

[Folwren]

Hm. I dunno, SPM. When I first read the book, I know I'd seen a painting by John Howe of the Balrog, and his Balrog had wings, I believe. But, when I read the book, I don't remembering actually thinking they had wings. It just seemed to me like some huge shadow and flame all mixed together.....no body, really, no wings...

-- Folwren

[The Saucepan Man]

But, when I read the book, I don't remembering actually thinking they had wings. It just seemed to me like some huge shadow and flame all mixed together.....no body, really, no wings...Which is why you're an anti-winger.

Obviously, not everyone will react in the same way to the text. My speculative theory, which is based upon my own experience, is really an attempt to explain why so many pro-wingers stick so tenaciously to their position, despite the contrary impression conveyed by the words used, when strictly and logically interpreted.

[Boromir88]

Hmm, perhaps Balrog's don't actually have wings, but perhaps something on their backs that look very much like wings.~Elentari
The problem with this is the Balrog is described as being 'man-shaped'. Something that is 'man-shaped' means it's form is that of a man's. I don't think something that is man-shaped would have bat wings (or something of that sort) coming out of his back. Just like if something was 'man-shaped' I wouldn't picture a 40-foot horned, and hooved, demon thing like Jackson portrays.

On top of that Durin's Bane was described as 'man-sized' and something man-sized simply wouldn't be able to have wings that when fully spread out reached to a 100 feet...but now I'm getting into repeating myself and so I'll just say this.

A lot of people think there is ambiguity and mystery surrounding the Balrog. They think nothing is known for certain and they're one giant enigma. That's not really true at all, I mean we're not dealing with Tom Bombadil here who Tolkien purposefully left as an enigma. Tolkien gave us a lot of information on his Balrogs, you just have to look for it, it's right there in the text. And I think the only reason people think there is a 'debate' over Balrog's is because of the movies and artists; who when looking at the text are not really even close to being accurate. As artists, and movie-makers are interested in selling their product, so they want to go for the 'coolest' looking pictures for their audience to make more money...and when you do that you often lose the accuracy. And then the public views these movies and pictures, gets these images stuck in their head and instead of looking at the text from an unbiased view, look at the text with the visualization of these distorted images in their head and try to find only things which support that visualization...like: 'and it's wings were spread from wall to wall.'...and completely disregard any other part of the text that plays a factor in determining whether the wings were merely an impression and metaphorical or were literal wings.

Don't get me wrong, because I don't want to sound mean or arrogant, but in most cases that's how it is.

I'll leave you with this...Here is a wonderful description Tolkien gives us of clouds...and it is precisely the same style he uses with Durin's Bane in Moria:
"And out of the west there would come at times a great cloud in the evening, shaped as it were an eagle, with pinions spread to the north and the south; and slowly it would loom up, blotting out the sunset, and then the uttermost night would fall upon Numenor. And some of the eagles bore lightning beneath their wings, and thunder echoed between sea and cloud."~The Akallabeth
Here Tolkien is describing clouds and he says the clouds were 'shaped as if it were an eagle'...there's the simile. Then he extends that simile to keep that imagery of clouds looking like eagles in the readers mind; with...and some of the eagles bore lightning beneath their wings.

Did the clouds morph into eagles? No, that's just Tolkien using language to the great extent that he was able to. He sets up the simile of clouds shaped like eagles, then to keep that imagery going he extends it and actually calls the clouds 'eagles.'

Same things happens in Gandalf's confrontation with Durin's Bane:
'...spread out like two vast wings.'
Then one moment later:
'...it's wings were spread from all to wall.'

[the guy who be short]

After 10 pages of this, is it time to start a petition to Christopher Tolkien? Now would be a good time too; he's obviously in a book-writing mood.

Do Balrogs Have Wings? and other Middle-Earth Questions, coming to a store near you soon.

[obloquy]

Balrogs being Maiar chose their own form (as Sauron did)...if they did choose a form with wings...what would be the purpose if not for flight? Therefor, it wouldn't make any sense as to why a Balrog would choose a form with wings yet were unable to fly. As there would be no purpose for the wings so why would they assume a form with wings?

Maybe. Or maybe they, like Melkor and Sauron, lost the ability to control how they appeared externally, presumably as a side-effect of becoming incarnate. If there were wings, they may have originally looked (and functioned) differently.

[obloquy]

After 10 pages of this, is it time to start a petition to Christopher Tolkien? Now would be a good time too; he's obviously in a book-writing mood.

Do Balrogs Have Wings? and other Middle-Earth Questions, coming to a store near you soon.

Why might one ask Christopher Tolkien this question?

[Folwren]

Why might one ask Christopher Tolkien this question?

Haha! Maybe he asked his Dad once! :D

-- Folwren

[ElentariGreenleaf]

Would love to see him write a whole book on this topic *rofl*

[Finduilas]

Yes, a book on the topic would be interesting. But I don't think that is the kind of question that CT would ask his dad.

[The Saucepan Man]

As artists, and movie-makers are interested in selling their product, so they want to go for the 'coolest' looking pictures for their audience to make more money...and when you do that you often lose the accuracy.I agree, to an extent. But I don't think that it is solely down to Tolkien artists and the film-makers. I believe that, for some people (and certainly for me), the same kind of thing occurs as a spontaneous reaction to the text, regardless of the proper, technical, logical interpretation of the words used.

I watched the first LotR film before I came across the Downs and before I was even aware that there was a debate over whether Balrogs had wings. At the time, I was struck (as with many of the film's other images) by how close Jackson's Balrog was to my own impression of the creature. When I first joined the Downs, I was actually rather surprised that there should even be any argument over the issue. To me, it went without saying that Balrogs were winged.

[Yiriandur]

Wow. I am positively stunned that this discussion is -still- extremely alive. It feels like I heard all those reasons for either side a million times, heh. I don't think the big goal of this topic in 2005, "settling it once and for all", will ever be achieved.

p.s. I voted 'yes'. ;)

[obloquy]

I watched the first LotR film before I came across the Downs and before I was even aware that there was a debate over whether Balrogs had wings. At the time, I was struck (as with many of the film's other images) by how close Jackson's Balrog was to my own impression of the creature.
This is because "Jackson's Balrog" is not Jackson's at all, it's John Howe's, which I guarantee you had seen before, whether you recall it or not.

[The Saucepan Man]

This is because "Jackson's Balrog" is not Jackson's at all, it's John Howe's, which I guarantee you had seen before, whether you recall it or not.True and yes, I had. Although I had seen no Tolkien art when I first read the book, and am pretty sure that Howe's depiction matched my own imaginings too when I first saw it. Difficult to be absolutely certain, because my original impression has almost certainly been influenced to a degree by art seen since. But I certainly do not recall it ever even occuring to me that the winged Balrog, as depicted by Howe and others, was wrong in any way (and I do recall seeing artists's depiction of Balrogs that struck me as "wrong", although not for any lack of wings). As I said, I never even considered the possibility that Balrogs might not have wings until I came here and read the articles on the front page.

In any event, the upshot of it all is that winged Balrgos are firmly impressed upon my mind and no amount of argument, however skillful on strongly grounded in textual evidence, is ever going to shake that.

[Finduilas]

I must have been to young when I first read the books, because I can't remember my personal image at the time.

I have to admit, I like the Balrog in the movie. Even though Jackson was wrong, he did a good job at making it look cool. Of course that is absolutely no excuse for him so have done it.

--Finduilas--

[Elfchick7]

Um...I am wondering why this is such a huge debate. Have y'all actually read the chapter the Bridge of Khazad-Dum? B/C Tolkien wrote, "The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall".

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Have you read the thread? That sentence has been argued over by many people.

[The Saucepan Man]

Even though Jackson was wrong, he did a good job at making it look cool. Of course that is absolutely no excuse for him so have done it.Actually, I think it was a perfectly good excuse. Film being a visual medium, I think that he was perfectly justified in portraying it the way he did. And, as obloquy correctly pointed out, it was based largely on John Howe's pre-exisiting Balrog imagery.

[Bêthberry]

Have you read the thread? That sentence has been argued over by many people.

Sometimes surviving on a wing and a prayer means a lot of hot air. ;)

[Finduilas]

Actually, I think it was a perfectly good excuse. Film being a visual medium, I think that he was perfectly justified in portraying it the way he did. And, as obloquy correctly pointed out, it was based largely on John Howe's pre-exisiting Balrog imagery.

Okay, then John Howe had no right to do that. I have great respect for John Howe, he is a great artist, but I kind of have to wonder where he got his image. I mean horns?

[Finduilas]

Oh, and Elfchick, if you read the last two pages of the thread, it should be able to answer your question.

[Bêthberry]

Okay, then John Howe had no right to do that. I have great respect for John Howe, he is a great artist, but I kind of have to wonder where he got his image. I mean horns?

I suppose this is the specific conundrum about illustrators: do they have complete artistic freedom to interpret a text or are they bound literally and only to what the words specifically claim? That is, should an image inspire an imaginative sense of the text or is it only a visual xerox of the words?

My sense is that the illustrators of Tolkien who are the most highly regarded are those who aspire to be fully imaginative artists, interpreters and not merely reproductionists. Their work has touched a chord with readers' imaginations.

[Elfchick7]

Have you read the thread? That sentence has been argued over by many people.

Ok, now I feel like a complete idiot. How did I miss that? Sorry y'all. :(

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Don't worry about it. Duplicate quotations and points make up about half of this thread. :)

(Still love it though.)

[Boromir88]

Don't worry about it. Duplicate quotations and points make up about half of this thread.~Eomer
While anything that's presented as 'new' is simply ignored. :rolleyes:

[Mithalwen]

The problem with this is the Balrog is described as being 'man-shaped'. Something that is 'man-shaped' means it's form is that of a man's.



A man's what though Boro :p

Seriously, though most depictions of angels in western culture are man shaped and winged ..and winged with wings which could not possibly be capable of flight .. maybe they are symbolic wings... :cool:

[Finduilas]

It sounds to me as if SaucePanMan has admitted that his image of the Balrog is not the Balrog that Tolkien described, please correct me if I'm wrong. If I am correct in my thinking, this thread was a discussion on whether Tolkiens Balrogs have wings, not whether they could have wings, whether they look better with wings, or whether John Howe had a right to draw them with wings.

[The Saucepan Man]

It sounds to me as if SaucePanMan has admitted that his image of the Balrog is not the Balrog that Tolkien described, please correct me if I'm wrong. Not quite. My image is that which the passage conveyed to me, rather than that which a strict technical construction of the words used might convey.

If I am correct in my thinking, this thread was a discussion on whether Tolkiens Balrogs have wings, not whether they could have wings, whether they look better with wings, or whether John Howe had a right to draw them with wings.No, it is a discussion on whether Balrogs have wings. However, unless someone is able to establish with any certainty whether Tolkien intended them to have wings (and I doubt that anyone ever will), I regard this as a subjective issue. I have therefore answered the question from a subjective perspective and attempted to explain the reason for my answer. As far as I am concerned, Balrogs do have (fully functioning) wings.

[Finduilas]

[QUOTE=No, it is a discussion on whether Balrogs have wings. However, unless someone is able to establish with any certainty whether Tolkien intended them to have wings (and I doubt that anyone ever will), I regard this as a subjective issue. QUOTE]

I don't see how it is different. I mean, whether Balrogs have wings and whether Tolkien's Balrog had wings. Maybe you misread my post?

I think that there is proff that Balrogs don't have wings. By any chance, did you read my first post on this thread? If you didn't, that is what my arguement right here is. If you would like me to repost it please tell me.

--Fin--

[Lord Halsar]

I thought that the balrog portrayed in the movies was of an interesting design. i, like many others, had not seen any art of the creature when first i read the book. however, when i did, it made me think, "A lot of these are so different! If i didn't know any better, i'd say that these were of different creatures! "
It made me wonder what the others might have looked like, or if Durin's Bane looked anything like the artists depiction at all.
But as to the matter at hand, I think that some might have had wings and others might not have. But i believed Durin's Bane to have wings, even though it never used them. When i first learned of this debate i thought, "Well, an odd discussion. But still, just because they never flew, doesn't have to mean that they didn't have wings. It's like presuming that even though no mortal had ever really beheld Eru Iluvatar, doesn't mean that he didn't exist. "

[Finduilas]

It has been said that if Christopher Tolkien said for a fact that Balrogs do or don't have wings, people would take his word for it. So why don't we take JRR Tolkiens word for it! It is kind of unfair to take Tolkiens creature, add wings, demand they have wings, when he said they don't have them.

[Sardy]

Actually, I think that the author's ambiguity of description regarding the Balrog's looks (and a great many other things in his works) may very well have been intentional. Often a writer will paint in very bold strokes, purposely sparking the imagination of his reader(s). I imagine that Tolkien's answer to the question of Balrog wings might very well have been, "Well, that's up to YOU, Dear Reader..."

[The Saucepan Man]

I don't see how it is different. I mean, whether Balrogs have wings and whether Tolkien's Balrog had wings. Maybe you misread my post?

I think that there is proff that Balrogs don't have wings. By any chance, did you read my first post on this thread?Yes, and I am pretty well acquainted with most, if not all, arguments in favour of wingless Balrogs. However, I consider that there is sufficient ambiguity in Tolkien's descriptions of Balrogs to support the contrary view (and, like Sardy, suspect that this may even have been the author's intention). How else can you explain the fact that so many of those who have voted in this poll, most of whom are familiar with the arguments, still consider Balrogs to be winged?

Hence, I believe that the matter is far from proven and that I am fully entitled to maintain my original image.

[Boromir88]

Sardy, in this case of Balrogs' wings I would have to disagree. As there is no ambiguity, it's all right there in the way Tolkien writes the scene.

Seriously, though most depictions of angels in western culture are man shaped and winged ..and winged with wings which could not possibly be capable of flight .. maybe they are symbolic wings...~Mith
They could very well be symbolic wings...symbolic of what I really have no idea. I mean Tolkien referred to his maiar as angels, that doesn't mean the Maiar had wings. His Balrogs were 'demons' that doesn't mean they had horns and hooves...same for the werewolves who were 'demonic wolves.' :D

Anyway, there shouldn't be any doubt that Durin's Bane did not have literal wings. Just look at the language and the structure of the scene as Tolkien writes:

"His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings."
This is saying the shadow (not the Balrog! - a very important point) reached out like two wings. There is no argument that this is a simile, it uses the word 'like' and comparing the shadow reaching out like two wings.
Then comes:
"it's wings were spread from wall to wall."
This is simply Tolkien using language to the great skill that he does to keep the comparison going. How can I say this with certainty because Tolkien has done it before. (And yes I'm repeating myself here because yet again it has gone unresponded to and ignored like it doesn't even matter):

(From the Akallabeth):
"And out of the west there would come at times a great cloud in the evening, shaped as it were an eagle"
There's the simile, a great cloud was shaped as if it was an eagle. Same structure as 'and it's shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.'
Than one moment later Tolkien directly refers to the 'clouds' as 'eagle':
"And some of the eagles bore lightning beneath their wings, and thunder echoed between sea and cloud."
Just as a moment later, Tolkien directly refers to 'the shadow of the Balrog' as wings...as he had already previously established the metaphor.

The problem isn't with whether one believes Balrogs have wings or not. But seeing as this is a forum, we are to discuss, debate, and argue our views. And seeing that this is the 'books' forum, I would expect a bit more 'scholarly' debate than images from D&D books and everything being simply disregarded under the word 'symbolic' (no offense meant to either of you). It is however, frustrating to try and get a discussion going, then having everything you just posted cast aside with a few words. I've wondered why discussion has slowed down lately in the books forum, and I think I just found the answer. Instead of debating the topic and trying to understand the other side, we (I include myselfh ere too) have all gotten lazy and just cast everything aside as 'I'll believe whatever I want and no one can convince me otherwise.' If that's going to be the way discussions are handled on this forum (the books), I lose all motivation to post. As there really is no more purpose to post if no one is willing to think about and consider all relevant arguments.

[The Saucepan Man]

Anyway, there shouldn't be any doubt that Durin's Bane did not have literal wings.I disagree. I have seen the meaning of the words you quote interpreted both ways over and over again, often by those who I consider to be intelligent and whose opinions I respect. I have never seen an argument which establishes their meaning, one way or the other, with sufficient certainty to convince me that they are anything but ambiguous.

Instead of debating the topic and trying to understand the other side, we (I include myselfh ere too) have all gotten lazy and just cast everything aside as 'I'll believe whatever I want and no one can convince me otherwise.' To be honest, I have never engaged in this debate on the basis of the interpretation of the various relevant passages (and there are others - the Balrogs flying to aid Melkor against Ungoliant, the fact that Balrogs often seem to meet their fate by falling to their deaths etc etc). The reason that I have never done so is that, having seen all the arguments, I have seen nothing to dissuade me from my pre-existing image of a Balrog. That and the fact that, as far as my approach to this topic is concerned, there is "nothing new under the sun". I have nothing to add to the various points that I have seen made one way or the other over a great many articles and threads. I would imagine that many "veterans" of the Balrog debate feel much the same way too (which is not to say that those to whom the issue is fresher should not engage heartily in debating it).

My only reason for being here at all was that I posted flippantly and was then called on to defend my long-standing position on the issue.

My answer to the question posed by this thread remains, unequivocally, yes. Not in consequence of a detailed analysis of the text (and, as I have said, I consider that there are meritorious arguments both ways). But because that is the way I have always imagined them (and probably always will). I'm sorry, but I really have very little to add on this issue other than that.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Moderator's note to follow up several of the above posts about this topic:

People, this is not a debating club, with strict rules about what constitutes a valid point and which style is allowed. The Downs has a long-standing tradition of mixing serious discussion with humour, and any member has the right to state her/his opinion. Of course it will find a better reception with others if it is founded on facts and supported by quotes, but the balrog question has not been conclusively decided elsewhere, and I doubt that we shall find the one correct answer here.

Tell us your thoughts, tell us why - and if you can convince us, great! If not, you still have the right to express your opinion, as long as you do so politely and in a friendly manner.

Now let's not debate about the debate - anyone who doesn't like this one is welcome to find another thread that suits her/him better! Better yet, find a topic we haven't discussed yet and start a new thread! :)

[Finduilas]

Since you wing fans haven't produced any evidence for yourself, I will :p I found this when looking up Balrogs in the Appendixes of the LOTR.

Thus they roused from sleep a thing of terror that, flying from Thangorodrim, had lain hidden at the foundations....

I think that if Tolkien had meant fleeing he would have used that word instead of flying.

Since I now have conflicting good arguements for both sides, I will withdraw myself from this debate, no longer convinced that they don't have wings, but not quite able to say they do.

--Finduilas--

[Mister Underhill]

Since you wing fans haven't produced any evidence for yourselfTsk! If you peruse the Downs' archives -- or even step back a few pages in this thread -- you'll find that some very vigorous pro-wing arguments have been made over the years. The "flying from Thangorodrim" quote has not, I assure you, gone unnoticed in the course of this longstanding debate.

For me, the wings question has become a Rorschach test of sorts, in which a poster's approach to an answer reveals as much or more about the poster than about the answer to the question.

Anyway, Esty's right that even posters like the esteemed Saucepan Man, who base their response more on feeling and emotion than on research and analysis, have a right to their opinion -- especially when it's the right opinion. ;)

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I wonder, has anyone ever asked if the Fellowship members have wings? After all, Gandalf, a Maia who ought to know these things, says, "Fly, you fools!" :Merisu:

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I seem to recall that this quote has been used in this thread, but a thought occurred to me yesterday while reading it.
My older brother had asked me to explain the Balrog Wings debate and during my explanation I read this from HoME VII:

"... A figure strode to the fissure, no more than man-high yet terror seemed to go before it. They could see the furnace-fire of its yellow eyes from afar; its arms were very long; it had a red [?tongue]. Through the air it sprang over the fiery fissure, the flames leaped up to greet it and wreathed about it. Its streaming hair seemed to catch fire and the sword that it held turned to flame. In its other hand it held a whip of many thongs.
...
The fiery figure ran across the floor. The Orcs yelled and shot many arrows.
...
Suddenly, with a spout of flame, it sprang on the bridge, but Gandalf stood firm.
...[Gandal's You cannot pass speech]...
The creature made no reply, but standing up tall so that it loomed above the wizard, it strode forward and smote him..."

Page 197-8

Now, it strikes me as odd that, in all this description of what the Balrog looks like, there is no mention of wings. Even in the final version as seen in The Lord of the Rings, the description of what the creature looks like and the mention of wings are not in the same place. There is a description of a creature of fire that has a sword. Then it moves a bit. There is some dialogue and only then are the shadow wings mentioned.
It strikes me that, if the creature has wings, then Tolkien would have mentioned it in the above, more detailed, description of the Balrog...

Unless I am missing something...

[Finduilas]

I agree with both Hookbill the Goomba and Estelyn Telcontar. But as I said, there is now, for me, evidence for both sides.

Mister Underhill, I was just joking when I said that. I had to start my confession some how (and while I have been here, they haven't shown any proof.)

--Fin--

[Sardy]

I think that if Tolkien had meant fleeing he would have used that word instead of flying.

As in... "Fly, you fools!"

Edit: Sorry, I see that I was not the first to jump on this. Also wanted to note that I am of the opinion that Balrog do indeed (at least in my personal reading of Tolkien's universe) have wings. But couldn't resist pointing Finduilas' overlooking of Tolkien's famous use of the word "fly."

[Bêthberry]

Obviously what is needed is a full linguistic compilation of all of Tolkien's uses of the word "fly". We need to see his pattern of collocation, the cognates he uses, his contexts, etc etc.

For now, here's this from CoH, a somewhat new source from which to extract more chapter and verse:


"The Valar! They have forsaken you, and they hold Men in scorn. What use to look westward across the endless Sea to a dying sunset in the West? There is but one Vala with whom we have to do, and that is Morgoth; and if in the end we cannot overcome him, at least we can hurt him and hinder him ... Though mortal Men have little life beside the span of the Elves, they would rather spend it in battle than fly or submit.

My bolding and, to be pedantically precise, I've picked this up quoted by a review, not from the book.

:D

[Aiwendil]

they would rather spend it in battle than fly or submit.

Turin preferred to keep both feet on the ground.

It's good that he didn't live to see Earendil take to the sky . . .

[Finduilas]

But couldn't resist pointing Finduilas' overlooking of Tolkien's famous use of the word "fly."

Lol. Yes I entirely understand that Tolkien does do that more than once. I'm glad that people disagree with me as to the proof of this statement.

I would also like to clarify something I said a few post ago.

Since I now have conflicting good arguements for both sides, I will withdraw myself from this debate, no longer convinced that they don't have wings, but not quite able to say they do.

I still think that they do not have wings. I have not abandoned the hosts of non wingers, but I am trying to abandon this thread... But I will wait till people are tired of abusing my silly comment on flying/fleeing :o

--Fin--

[Mithalwen]

The problem isn't with whether one believes Balrogs have wings or not. But seeing as this is a forum, we are to discuss, debate, and argue our views. Instead of debating the topic and trying to understand the other side, we (I include myselfh ere too) have all gotten lazy and just cast everything aside as 'I'll believe whatever I want and no one can convince me otherwise.' If that's going to be the way discussions are handled on this forum (the books), I lose all motivation to post. As there really is no more purpose to post if no one is willing to think about and consider all relevant arguments.

Boromir, while I agree that the books forum is not at its most vibrant currently, and while some topics are more interesting to those for whom they are a brave new world while the longer dead smile and say " 'tis new to thee". I don't think this topic has that much mileage to get so worked up about.

I always had the impression that the Balrog had wings but I also had the impression that elves didn't have pointy ears and that the hobbits foot hair was on the soles... the films made me reread more carefully and corrected me of those latter two misapprehensions. This thread made me reread from my initial vote of "yes" and while the "like two vast wings" made me reconsider, I still think the jury is out. The text is ambiguous in my opinion, and I think there is reasonable doubt as to the whether Durin's bane had wings.

In the quote, yes the shadow stretches out "like two vast wings". That is clearly a simile and not debatable in itself. However the presence of shadow wings and actual wings are not mutually exclusive... and if we are going to be so literal, I might point out that a shadow is created by a physical object preventing light from falling in a place ..... what might cast a shadow like big wings ... well wings perhaps ;) .

Taken in isolation, the second quote seems to refer to actual wings. It is only by reference to the other that one might think that these are metaphorical not literal wings. So for me even on the text alone there is scope for doubt. However, Balrogs are spirits of fire. The description is rather like that of Gandalf in " a long expected party" when he threatens to uncloak:"He seemed to grow tall and menacing; his shadow filled the little room" , and also of Galadriel when she is offered the ring. There are many instances of powerful beings - especially those whose fea is dominant over their hroa - Istari, ancient and reborn eldar, - seeming other than they are when they are roused. A balrog must have some physical form but I don't see why it should be fixed. Certainly if they are winged, I would think they are good for gliding more than gaining height - they seem to fall too much for that. They may be like dragons - some winged some not... but for me the bottom line is that it IS ambiguous and I don't actually care that much - I am still traumatised by the hobbits hairy ankles and bearded baby dwarves but I don't lose sleep over this one. There are so many wore interesting things to talk about and I shall perhaps find a few to start threads on :D but this is like flogging Snowmane after his encounter with the fell beast ...

[Thinlómien]

I've always known that winged balrogs are no good and recent experiences (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=522113&postcount=209) have enstrengthened the belief... :p

[Lord Halsar]

Forgive me if this has already been presented, but I recently found this little bit of information in the RotK appendix A.
"Thus they roused from sleep a thing of terror that, flying from Thangorodrim, had lain hidden at the foundations of the earth since the coming of the Host of the West: a Balrog of Morgoth."
Whether this is like Gandalf's use of the word meaning to flee or retreat, or if it truly does mean to fly, I do not know.

[Lord Gothmog]

The Balrog and Wings.

Ok, I know that every possible quote has been offered and no doubt 'done to death' in this thread. I have debated in more than one of these :).

I give now only my views on the matter. When I first read the LotR and stood with the Fellowship at the chasm of Khazad-dûm, the impression that I got of the Balrog was of a large, Man-shaped, demonic being without wings. Nothing in the writing showed me a creature with 'Wings'.

When I first saw a debate on wings for a Balrog I could not understand why anybody thought the Balrog had any. So I did some thinking, perhaps I was wrong and re-read the books (again). I still see a very large creature (perhaps as much as 14ft tall) surrounded by a 'cloak-like' shadow that it could extend at will, similar to the darkness that surrounded Ungoliant though not as thick. Further reading and thought found no definite case of a Balrog travelling in the manner of birds in flight. They seemed at all times to be 'Ground Troops'.

So I asked myself "Why would any creature that could choose its own form saddle itself with ungainly great appendages that have no real purpose?"

This is what I came up with.

The Only creditable reasons given for wings are
a) To increase its apparent size to intimidate.
b) To Fly or Glide.

a) This is a pointless reason as the Balrog is intimidating enough due to the fear that goes before it and the fact that to increase its apparent size to look more terrible it has the Shadow which it can spread.

b) There is at no point in the writings any evidence that the Balrog could fly or even Glide. Indeed the best time for either of these actions would have been during the battle above Gondolin where there was no restriction due to space and every reason to use wings due to the height at which this battle took place. Yet even before the fight between Glorfindel and the Balrog took place we find this :-

Already the half had passed the perilous way and the falls of Thorn Sir, when that Balrog that was with the rearward foe leapt with great might on certain lofty rocks that stood into the path on the left side upon the lip of the chasm, and thence with a leap of fury he was past Glorfindel's men and among the women and the sick in front, lashing with his whip of flame.
The Book of Lost Tales: The Fall of Gondolin.

Rather than flying or gliding to get past Glorfindel's men it did so by "Leaping" A creature capable of gliding would no doubt have "Leaped Up" from where it was but then would have glided from there to the front of the line.

In the absence of any definite evidence in favour of flight, to me Occam's razor amputates the wings. :)

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Tolkien also tells us that before the appearance of the Winged Dragons in the War of Wrath, Morgoth had never before essayed to bring war to the upper airs. This is related to the observation that at Gondolin the Balrogs needed the dragon-tanks to surmount the city walls- hardly necessary for flying creatures!

Tolkien uses 'fly' so often and so regularly in its sense of 'flee, run away,' dozens and dozens of times, that no significance at all can be attached to its use in connection to Balrogs.

Besides, the leading cause of death among Balrogs (100% of known cases) is plummeting.

[Sardy]

If nothing else, is it not true that Gandalf the Grey's final words should lay this debate to rest?: "It flies, you fools!"

jk

[Lord Gothmog]

Besides, the leading cause of death among Balrogs (100% of known cases) is plummeting.

Although, to be fair, Gothmog's plummet was very short (and wet), and no doubt having the spike of Ecthelion's helm stuck in his guts probably did not help ;)

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

If nothing else, is it not true that Gandalf the Grey's final words should lay this debate to rest?: "It flies, you fools!"

jkDidn't he say, Fly you fools!not it flys

anyway, Balrogs have shadows that look like wings I am pretty sure!

[Gwathagor]

Maybe they were vestigial...wings made of shadow couldn't have been too useful, while they certainly would been imposing/ridiculously trendy.

[Lord Halsar]

Ugh!:mad: The person who started this thread said that this would potentially settle the matter, and yet here we all are, still bickering over the same usages of words and phrases, getting nowhere with the topic. My hopes for this matter to ever be laid to rest are dead (unlike the topic) and I hope that all of you will realize that we may never know.:(

[Lord Gothmog]

I hope that all of you will realize that we may never know.

Of course we will know.

Some (like me) will know that Balrogs do Not have Wings!

Some will know that Balrogs Do have Wings!

In this, each reader puts their own Demon into the shadowy area marked out by Tolkien.

[Lord Halsar]

In this, each reader puts their own Demon into the shadowy area marked out by Tolkien.

Finally! Someone finally gets it!

[obloquy]

Ugh!:mad: The person who started this thread said that this would potentially settle the matter, and yet here we all are, still bickering over the same usages of words and phrases, getting nowhere with the topic. My hopes for this matter to ever be laid to rest are dead (unlike the topic) and I hope that all of you will realize that we may never know.:(

The thread had been inactive since April of '07.

[Finduilas]

The thread had been inactive since April of '07.

Yes indeed, but it always pops back up. Not all threads do that.

[obloquy]

The point is that the nerd whining about the issue never being put to rest is the one who resurrected it after 7 months of inactivity to post a quotation that first entered this particular discussion back on page 2.

[Groin Redbeard]

Why are there threads all over the Down's dedicated to the subject of Balrog's wings? :confused: Isn't it common sense that Balrogs of wings?

[Lord Gothmog]

Why are there threads all over the Down's dedicated to the subject of Balrog's wings? :confused: Isn't it common sense that Balrogs of wings?

No, it is common sense that Balrogs do not have wings.

However, Common sense is an oxymoron.

Sense in not at all common. ;)

[Lord Halsar]

The point is that the nerd whining about the issue never being put to rest is the one who resurrected it after 7 months of inactivity to post a quotation that first entered this particular discussion back on page 2.


First off: You say nerd like it's a bad thing.
Second: I wasn't whining (per se), and the only reason I did was because I had yet to realize that entering anything in hopes to end it would be a futile effort.

[skip spence]

Couldn't resist replying on this thread...

As some others already stated: no where in any writings of Tolkien is there any description of Balrogs with wings... I guess this misconception comes from in the mention of wings in Moria. But those of you who believe they are actual wings as opposed to a wing-shaped shadow must have poor English reading skills indeed or you haven't read the books at all.

Don't remember the exact words in the bridge of khazad dum passage now but wasn't is something like "it's wings spread from wall to wall..."?

Now correct my if I'm wrong, but wasn't this episode in one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) halls of Moria. If they were actual physical wings this would imply the Balrog was immensly tall. This huge size would also imply that:

The balrogs sword and whip would have been redundant as it would have been able to crush Gandalf like a bug.

The wings would also have been made redundant as it would have been able to step over the gorge as if it were a pothole.

Now as you all know the balrog walked (!) out on the bridge (which was just wide enough to pass one man at a time) where Gandalf fought it and cast it down in the abyss by raising the bridge.

All this would have been impossible if the Balrog was gigantic, let alone had wings.

Now there's absolutely nothing in this passage that implies that the Balrog had wings. Sure you could argue that it had wing but was flightless you could also argue that it had a leather jacket. If I said Balrogs wore leather jackets you would call me crazy though.

[HerenIstarion]

It's been so long I forgot my own position back at the time... :rolleyes: lucky it gives one their own choice in italics, so I must have been of the no-winger party if this software is to be trusted...

But, skip spence, surely you don't imply that whatever walked out at Gandalf and Co was nothing more than an undersized excuse for a balrog that only grew in the telling over the ages the tale has been told? :eek: Why should we diminish its stature in order to get rid of its wings (if any)?

[obloquy]

I don't think there's any written evidence that balrogs were--or Durin's Bane was particularly--gigantic. Greater than a man in size, for sure, and capable of flaring their silhouette to demoralizing effect, but not so large as to be unable (obviously) to make their way through the less spectacular doorways and hallways of Moria. Greater than Sauron in physical form? It seems unlikely. After a certain point, size becomes impractical for an intelligent creature, especially if we assume that, as Maiar, balrogs were probably accustomed to more comfortable dwellings than holes in mountains such as dragons made use of (note: Moria was not just a hole in a mountain).

[HerenIstarion]

I don't think there's any written evidence that balrogs were--or Durin's Bane was particularly--gigantic. Greater than a man in size, for sure, and capable of flaring their silhouette to demoralizing effect, but not so large as to be unable (obviously) to make their way through the less spectacular doorways and hallways of Moria. Greater than Sauron in physical form? It seems unlikely. After a certain point, size becomes impractical for an intelligent creature, especially if we assume that, as Maiar, balrogs were probably accustomed to more comfortable dwellings than holes in mountains such as dragons made use of (note: Moria was not just a hole in a mountain).

Hello, old man :J

I didn't say Balrogs were 'gigantic', did I? Was just interested in train of thought behind the conclusion

In fact, it must have been of moderate size (scene of Ganlalf holding the door being an evidence), just it seemed somewhat strange to mee that people would need to rely on abstract reasoning and law of physics and the such when textual evidence is there to make use of, few pages back from the bridge scene :)

`As I stood there I could hear orc-voices on the other side: at any moment I thought they would burst it open. I could not hear what was said; they seemed to be talking in their own hideous language. All I caught was ghâsh; that is "fire". Then something came into the chamber – I felt it through the door, and the orcs themselves were afraid and fell silent. It laid hold of the iron ring, and then it perceived me and my spell.
'What it was I cannot guess, but I have never felt such a challenge. The counter-spell was terrible. It nearly broke me. For an instant the door left my control and began to open! I had to speak a word of Command. That proved too great a strain. The door burst in pieces. Something dark as a cloud was blocking out all the light inside, and I was thrown backwards down the stairs. All the wall gave way, and the roof of the chamber as well, I think

Italics mine

Indeed, something capabale of 'laying hold of the iron ring' designed by dwarves and for dwarves' use, could not have been more than a few times larger than a dwarf, let alone problem of squeezing into the hall in the first place. Note also that the door is shattered not by a physical force that would have been a natural choice for a creature that large rather than 'words of command' and 'counter spells' (to be quite truthul, the door is, in the end, shattered by physical force of the 'roof of the chamber' falling down, but I'm talking cause here)

Anyway, even if I seem to be repeating Skip's argument's to an extent (though with greater eloquence I dare to believe), it was his somewhat harsh ranking of all pro-wingers to a man under 'poor English skills' file that made me want to tease him a bit.

[obloquy]

ehe. :D

[skip spence]

But, skip spence, surely you don't imply that whatever walked out at Gandalf and Co was nothing more than an undersized excuse for a balrog that only grew in the telling over the ages the tale has been told?

That's a very creative interpretation of my post (the first on this forum I believe) and how you came to it I can't guess. Perhaps my writing isn't eloquent enough to comprehend?

The physical appearance of a Balrog is never directly described, nor is its size. Tolkien probably wanted to allow the reader to make a mental image of the creature far scarier than what he'd be able to conjure up. If you imagine the Balrog with wings there's nothing wrong with that. Nor is it right. ;)


:eek: Why should we diminish its stature in order to get rid of its wings (if any)?


I'm not trying to diminish it's size. Where have I said anything like that? And if you really can't follow my train of thought, you too must have rather poor English reading skills. Seriously.

[Nerwen]

Actually, it depends on the sex of the Balrog. As with fireflies, only males have wings. (See Letter #144, and "Morgoth's Ring" p. 70.)

Mind you, I'm not sure if this is strictly canonical. At the time Tolkien was playing with the idea that Morgoth had bred the Balrogs from a species of insect, a concept that he later abandoned.

[HerenIstarion]

That's a very creative interpretation of my post

Mea culpa, confiteor. Maybe I tend to see depths below surfaces where none have been intended. Still

I'm not trying to diminish it's size. Where have I said anything like that?

Few posts up :D. Consider:

If they were actual physical wings this would imply the Balrog was immensly tall

If my logic be correct, this statement in itself implies its reverse that would be, roughly, as follows: 'if they were not actual physical wings, this would imply the Balrog was diminutively short'

Of course, I may have been taking it a bit too far, but your own post did not contain an indicator as to what definition opposed to immensely tall would you have stopped at yourself, so the scale of immensely tall - diminutively short is open to be used according to my liking.

And if you really can't follow my train of thought, you too must have rather poor English reading skills. Seriously.

That may well be the case. Yet, within this sentence you claim that your position reflects the truth (or is closer to the truth) not because it is based on fact, but because your perception ability is of superior quality. Huh?

As I've mentioned earlier, I believe [mark the verb used] Balrogs were not winged. Still, your uncompromising (to say the least) manner, merciful Sir (M'am?) forces me to argue with you over an issue we, apparently, agree upon :rolleyes:

-----------------------------------------------

Nerwen, you must have the wrong letter there, at least all letter 144 says about Balrogs is as follows:

The Balrog is a survivor from the Silmarillion and the legends of the First Age. So is Shelob. The Balrogs, of whom the whips were the chief weapons, were primeval spirits of destroying fire, chief servants of the primeval Dark Power of the First Age. They were supposed to have been all destroyed in the overthrow of Thangorodrim, his fortress in the North. But it is here found (there is usually a hang-over especially of evil from one age to another) that one had escaped and taken refuge under the mountains of Hithaeglin (the Misty Mountains). It is observable that only the Elf knows what the thing is – and doubtless Gandalf.

As far as I'm concernend, letters don't contain any further mention of Balrogs but one as follows:

The Balrog never speaks or makes any vocal sound at all. Above all he does not laugh or sneer. .... Z may think that he knows more about Balrogs than I do

Letter 210

Can't remember male/female wings/fireflies concept either, would be glad to be directed :)

[Nerwen]

Sorry, I meant Letter #134.

The firefly reference is from the second section of "Annals of Aman" (Morgoth's Ring):

And in Utumno he wrought from the creeping and flying insects of Yavanna the race of demons whom the Elves after named the Balrogs. And they were like unto fireflies, though much greater; those that were male among them had wings, but those that were female had not.

[HerenIstarion]

Sorry, I meant Letter #134.



I'm afraid not :)

134 From a letter to Rayner Unwin 29 August 1952

I am at last turning to my own affairs. The situation is this: I am anxious to publish The Lord of the Rings as soon as possible. I believe it to be a great (though not flawless) work. Let other things follow as they may. But as the expense of typing proved prohibitive, I had to do it all myself, and there is only one (more or less) fair copy in existence. I dare not consign that to the post, and in any case I am now going to devote some days to correcting it finally. For this purpose, I am retiring tomorrow from the noise and stench of Holywell to my son's cottage on Chiltern-top while he is away with his children.1.... I shall return on September 10th. After that I could call with my burden at Museum Street2 on some date convenient to you .... or, if that is not asking too much, you could call on me (as you so kindly suggest might be possible). ....
I have recently made some tape-recordings of pans of the Hobbit and The Lord (notably the Gollum-passages and some pieces of 'Elvish') and was much surprised to discover their effectiveness as recitations, and (if I may say so) my own effectiveness as a narrator, I do a very pretty Gollum and Treebeard. Could not the BBC be interested? The tape-reel is in the possession of George Sayer (English Master at Malvern) and I am sure he would forward it for your or anyone else's trial. It was unrehearsed and impromptu and could be improved.3
I should love to come to London, if only for the purpose of seeing you and meeting your wife. But I am cutting even the 'seventh International Congress of Linguists' (Sept 1), of which I am an official – time is so miserably short, and I am tired. I have on my plate not only the 'great works', but the overdue professional work I was finishing up at Cambridge (edition of the Ancrene Wisse); the W. P. Ker lecture at Glasgow; Sir Gawain; and new lectures! But your continued interest cheers me. I have a constant 'fan-mail' from all over the English-speaking world for 'more' – curiously enough often for 'more about the Necromancer', which the Lord certainly fulfils.

:)

The firefly reference is from the second section of "Annals of Aman" (Morgoth's Ring

Thanks

Still can't seem able to locate it, will require a little bit of time I guess :)

[Nerwen]

Hang on, maybe I'm thinking of Letter #143.

[skip spence]

If my logic be correct, this statement in itself implies its reverse that would be, roughly, as follows: 'if they were not actual physical wings, this would imply the Balrog was diminutively short' Of course, I may have been taking it a bit too far, but your own post did not contain an indicator as to what definition opposed to immensely tall would you have stopped at yourself, so the scale of immensely tall - diminutively short is open to be used according to my liking.


Once again your deduction astounds me. Let me see if I understand your point of view: You're saying that since my statement the Balrog wasn't immensly tall is possible to interpret as the Balrog was diminutively short you have the freedom to do so? And also that you are forced to argue with me as my position in this current debate is too uncompromising?

You are indeed free to come up with wild interpretations of what I'm writing to make a forced argument but this isn't very constructive, nor does it make you look very clever. Do you know the opposite of clever? Use the same logic as before and see what comes up.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Nerwen maybe wasn't evil in the beginning, but she obviously is now. You made it up, confess! I am not a HoME expert, but there are surely many around here, and I'd really wonder if such an argument as you quote existed, that it would not have been quoted here, even though if it were, surely there will be a debate whether it is or is not canonical.

[skip spence]

^Yes, I suspect that HerenIstarion must have misinterpreted Nerwen's post slightly, despite all his eloquence and masterful command of the English language, .:rolleyes:

[Nerwen]

Letter #243 also contains information about Balrog reproduction. Apparently a Balrog is born every minute.

[skip spence]

There's a sucker born every minute, PT Barnum once said. I wasn't aware he was talking about Balrogs.:p

[Nerwen]

Well, now you know better.:D

[HerenIstarion]

I suspect that HerenIstarion must have misinterpreted Nerwen's post slightly, despite all his eloquence and masterful command of the English language

You suspect correctly, admit being caught there :D

this isn't very constructive

The following isn't either:

But those of you who believe they are actual wings as opposed to a wing-shaped shadow must have poor English reading skills indeed or you haven't read the books at all

Basically, to 'wildly interpret' you once again, what you say here boils down to 'all who don't agree with me on the issue are silly (to use the most mild expression). Even, as I've said earlier, I agree with you on the matter of absence of wings, I don't think your type of argument is valid enough to uphold it.

Do you know the opposite of clever?

I may forward educated guess, and sometimes I admit fitting the description, but not this time I'm afraid (apart from Nerwen's prank. I guess my knowledge of HoME is getting a bit rusty with years :smokin:)

[Thinlómien]

Nerwen, you're evil. You know, you had me finding my this far unread copy of Morgoth's Ring and skim through the Annals of Aman thinking "Nerwen just can't be serious about it"... :rolleyes: :D The good thing is that skimming the book made me sure I must continue my HoME reading project soon, not "when I have time".

But, if Balrogs were like fireflies, then we would have an interesting and valuable piece of information: Durin's Bane was a girl. ;)

[Boromir88]

Or instead of arguing semantics about what one member said Durin's Bane height was, and what another said, and look straight at the text....:rolleyes:

"A figure strode to the fissure, no more than man-high and yet terror
seemed to go before it."~HoME VII: The Bridge of Khazad-dum

Alter description of Balrog. It seemed to be of man’s shape, but its
form could not be plainly discerned. It felt larger than it looked.~ibid

And these are consistant with the descriptions of the balrog height in The Lord of the Rings: The Bridge of Khazad-dum. There you have it, Durin's Bane is roughly 6 feet tall...now see how simple that was?

(As a note those quotes you will actually find...I'm not being a nasty, tricksy, false, Nerwen :p)

Basically, to 'wildly interpret' you once again, what you say here boils down to 'all who don't agree with me on the issue are silly (to use the most mild expression).~Heren
Why thank you Heren, for finally admitting that I'm always right. :rolleyes:

[obloquy]

I don't think the HoMe VII version and the final version are entirely congruent, Boromir. I think we should not ignore the emendation from "no more than man-high" to "of man shape yet greater." The difference is potentially vast; perhaps in this case it is not so, but the wording of the LotR certainly allows for a very large balrog, and it necessitates one of at least formidable size, especially when the contrast of the earlier draft is kept in mind.

[Rikae]

I have a somewhat oddball answer to this question (sorry for jumping in mid-discussion, too), but I would say Tolkien intended the description of Durin's bane to be ambiguous, using phrases like "Its streaming mane kindled, and blazed behind it" as well as the celebrated two "wings" lines... "mane" can imply something either bestial or human, and "kindled" can either evoke a mane which is on fire or one made of it... similarly, he creates uncertainty by first referring to the shadow being like wings, and then simply referring to the "wings". If anything, verbally, the shadow-wings are given a heighted solidity and reality by being referred to this way (or, if you prefer, the real wings are lent an aura of uncertainty and insubstantiality.) The Fellowship probably couldn't tell whether the wings were real or not, and, by making us see through the Fellowship's confused viewpoint, Tolkien allows the reader to experience some measure of their fear and unease.
I other words, no and yes. :p

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Rikae, I'm pretty much in your camp. The wings are referred both metaphorically and non-metaphorically, which is quite ambiguous. Long ago, I came up with my own rationale for this: Since balrogs are Maiar and, one presumes, originally incarnated themselves in ways they chose, it's possible that not all balrogs looked alike, and this particular one chose to manifest itself in a shape that had wings in order to make a more imposing and terrifying appearance to its foes. The wings, however, are clearly not functional; we are never told that the critter flew. It leaps out onto the bridge, it cannot fly up after falling into the chasm, there is no inference anywhere that it is at all capable of flight. But it could still have wings for show, to make itself look huge and looming and threatening, and thus strike fear into the hearts of its enemies and underlings.

Now, one does wonder if all balrogs looked alike, or if they actually did choose different forms...? Hmmm.....

[obloquy]

They probably all looked more or less like the Children. However, it would have been to Morgoth's advantage for his servants to be incarnated so it is possible that he imposed it on them, perhaps by directly incarnating them if he had that power, perhaps by tricking them into bringing it upon themselves. If Morgoth chose their forms there's somewhat more possibility that they appeared monstrous.

[sreeja]

I think yes.What is your opinion?:):)

[Eönwë]

Since new members are registering every moment, I will bring this back into the light.

Second of all, since I've never commented, I think that balrogs probably didn't have wings.

But Ibrin's comment is probably the truest- they were all (at least slightly) different.

But maybe they could have wings, which help them to glide (like the "draco" lizard or some types of tree frogs and even some types of snakes.)

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Bump (or is that flap?)

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Flap. Definitely flap.

It might be a flightless flap, but ostriches give those all the time.

[Boromir88]

Flap. Definitely flap.

It might be a flightless flap, but ostriches give those all the time.

So, the balrog is a flapping, flightless bird freak now? And not a demon using it's big, scary, shadowy intimidation by shaping into ludicrously large (figuritive) wings? Large wing span = me frightened, like California Condor frightened. :p

[Kuruharan]

Man, this thread is positively hilarious to come back and re-read four years after the last time I read it.

Of course, the important point I wish to make here is that I want the ability to vote over and over again until my side is ahead.

[skip spence]

I think no. What do you think?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

The most disappointed I'd ever been was when, upon meeting a friend of a friend whom I was told also "loved Lord of the Rings" I asked this question and received the notorious response:

"What's a Balrog?"

:(

[Morsul the Dark]

Eomer had a similar experience,

Someone in class a couple years back said she loved LOTR, so I asked.

response- "Um duh, you can see them right there on the screen."
me, "Yeah in the movie but what about the book?"
"There's a book?"

"facepalm"

[Inziladun]

I think no. What do you think?

I voted no. If Eru had meant for Balrogs to fly, he'd have given them hovercrafts.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Eomer had a similar experience,

Someone in class a couple years back said she loved LOTR, so I asked.

response- "Um duh, you can see them right there on the screen."
me, "Yeah in the movie but what about the book?"
"There's a book?"

"facepalm"

:D

Imagine the Downs didn't exist and that was all we had?

[Galadriel]

The most disappointed I'd ever been was when, upon meeting a friend of a friend whom I was told also "loved Lord of the Rings" I asked this question and received the notorious response:

"What's a Balrog?"

:(

Does anyone else around here despise it when someone who has only watched the movies says that they love Lord of the Rings?
I find them to be thoroughly aggravating...

*ahem* On the topic. I think they had wings, but they couldn't fly. Sort of like chickens and dodos, if you get what I mean.:Merisu:

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Sort of like chickens and dodos, if you get what I mean.

The longest recorded flight of a chicken was 13 seconds. I learned this from a poster on a bathroom stall of a building I sauntered into because nobody bothered to shut the door and I needed a restroom. I thought you'd like to know.

[Nerwen]

The longest recorded flight of a chicken was 13 seconds.
The fact that figures of that kind have an 89.9847353% chance of having been made up on the spot notwithstanding, chickens can indeed fly a little bit, so that leaves dodos.

Let's try it out:
"Ai!" wailed Legolas. "A dodo! A dodo is come!"

Hmmm.

[Morsul the Dark]

I don't understand why they can't exist for show... like A snake with a fringed neck or the Sarcastic Fringhead Fish (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjexNXJYblQ)

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

The fact that figures of that kind have an 89.9847353% chance of having been made up on the spot notwithstanding, chickens can indeed fly a little bit, so that leaves dodos.

94.223^3% of people may believe that you just completely invented that statistic.

Nevertheless, I tend toward "just because they're made out of shadow doesn't mean they aren't real," combined with a healthy dose of "just because a body part exists doesn't mean it has to work: just look at wisdom teeth and appendices; not only are they not-useful, they seem to be designed specifically to make our lives WORSE."

Try telling me shadows don't exist! Don't be hatin' just because them vestigial shadow appendages are dysfunctional in an enclosed subterranean environment.

I like to think Gandalf's last words were a shrouded insult to Roggie.

"Fly, you fools!" he yelled, but nobody heard his next muttered sentence: "Because the balrog can't. Suck it, balrog!"

[Morthoron]

'Winged speed', ladies and gentlemen, 'winged speed':

'Swiftly they [Morgoth's Balrogs] arose, and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum, and they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire.'

Now, you may believe the phrase 'winged speed' (in Shakespearean pronunciation, 'wing-ed speed') is a metaphor; however, in context to the sentence as a whole, 'Swiftly they arose' indicates lift or ascent. Tolkien uses the words 'passed...over' and not merely 'crossed' Hithlum, which also refers to an overhead route, and a 'tempest of fire' ('tempest' defined as a storm or squall) would be defined as a firestorm from above. 'Arose', 'passed...over', 'winged speed', 'tempest' -- all indicative of flight, ascent or heights.

In addition, have any of you ever looked at the distance between Hithlum and Lammoth, and were you aware that Ered Lómin (the Echoing Mountains) separated Hithlum from Lammoth? To put it in context with the internal logic of the story, the balrogs 'arose', 'and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum' -AND- over Ered Lomin, and they alighted into 'Lammoth as a tempest of fire.'

The Balrogs were called by Morgoth in an emergency, a life and death situation where minutes counted. They did not run like some cartoon characters -- feet whizzing in a cyclonic blur like Speedy Gonzalez or the Roadrunner -- and simply scaled Ered Lómin like some mega-hikers hyped up on meta-amphetamines, all in an appropriate amount of time to swiftly aid Morgoth. The very idea is absurd. The passage only makes sense if they had wings and flew over the mountain in time to save their master.

As far as Durin's Bane, when was the last time he had a chance to fly in Moria? Would flight even be possible in such unlit caverns? Where would he fly to? That he fell when the bridge collapsed does not mean that he couldn't fly; on the contrary, there is such a thing as 'lift' in aeronautics. The Balrog was in free-fall, a nose-dive, and could not maintain sufficient 'lift' because of his great body mass.

In conclusion, Balrogs have wings because it looks much cooler than a plain, old, wingless demon. How insipid! How dreadfully mundane! Argue amongst yourselves, I have all the data I need to make an informed decision. ;)

[Mister Underhill]

Ah (or should that be 'Ai'?), the Balrog Wars. I am fortunately comfortably retired from same, but this thread brings back memories, particularly this, Morth:
'Winged speed', ladies and gentlemen, 'winged speed': [snip]I deployed this same argument during a campaign over nine years ago (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=9018&postcount=90) (OMG). I think just about every scrap of Balrog information and evidence, no matter how tenuous or tangential, has been battled over here at one time or another, but it's nice to see one of the more obscure arguments independently confirmed, as it were.

Ten years later and something I said back then seems even more true today -- arguing Balrog wings is like arguing religion or politics. The odds of actually converting someone to your way of thinking are practically nil.

In fact, the ground is so tenaciously contested that this, from Kuru -- I may be willing to partially concede a small point. [regarding some basically inconsequential detail about the doors of the Chamber of Mazarbul]-- was a MAJOR victory, of which songs shall be sung and epic poems shall be written hereafter. Seriously, I gotta get going on those poems. They're not gonna write themselves. Anyway, there was feasting, wine, and wenches that night, I assure you.

[Galadriel]

The longest recorded flight of a chicken was 13 seconds. I learned this from a poster on a bathroom stall of a building I sauntered into because nobody bothered to shut the door and I needed a restroom. I thought you'd like to know.

I already know that fact, but I was talking on a general note.

[Kuruharan]

...hey...wait a minute... ;)

And besides, I've already changed my mind once already. I was a pro-winger *way* back in the ancient mists of time before I even joined this site.

where minutes counted

I'm not so sure that is necessarily the case. I think it possible that a personal duel between Morgoth and Ungoliant would have taken days...especially since she was trying to strangle him rather than eat him. I doubt Morgoth was passive against her and he was the great primeval evil after all.

[Morthoron]

I'm not so sure that is necessarily the case. I think it possible that a personal duel between Morgoth and Ungoliant would have taken days...especially since she was trying to strangle him rather than eat him. I doubt Morgoth was passive against her and he was the great primeval evil after all.

The terms 'swiftly', 'winged speed' and 'tempest' indicate great haste, they do not indicate a leisurely hike over the mountains:

"Heidi!"

"Grandfather!"

"Heidi! Heidi!"

"Grandfather! Grandfather!"

We are not talking about donning one's lederhosen and strolling along the goat paths picking wildflowers on the way to grandfather's chalet.

At the point Morgoth is crying out in lamentations, he no longer has a viable defense against Ungoliant, grown monstrous from gorging herself on the Two Trees. She surpasses him in terror and strength. He is in dire straits and about to be overwhelmed. The Balrogs are not marching for days, they are flying with 'winged speed'. All the several descriptors in the passage I provided indicate flight and not walking or running.

[Kuruharan]

I was not proposing a leisurely hike across the countryside. The distance involved would add to their haste.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

An aspect that has not, not my knowledge, been previously mentioned is that of the balrog's long sleep. Two factors would contribute to the theory that it had wings, yet did not use them. For one, we all know that neglect and disuse produces atrophied muscles. After centuries, even ages of hibernation, the balrog was not able to move its wings because the muscles had deteriorated.

The second aspect is that which Shakespeare called "to sleep, perchance to dream". Dreaming for such a long time may have caused the balrog to forget that it had wings. We all know how disoriented we can be when rudely awakened out of a dream! By the time it remembered its wings, and the additional time it took to remember *how* to use them, it failed miserably because it *could not*.

All further posts and arguments are redundant: the mystery has thusly been solved.

Thank you - really, applause is not necessary. :Merisu:

[Nerwen]

*applauds anyway*

[Puddleglum]

An aspect that has not, not my knowledge, been previously mentioned is that of the balrog's long sleep. ... neglect and disuse produces atrophied muscles. ...Dreaming for such a long time may have caused the balrog to forget that it had wings.
Good point imo about muscle atrophy.

I'm not so sure about the forgetting, tho, as the Balrog had been awake again for several hundred years - certainly long enough to notice these things on its back and think about what they were for.

Of course, being *inside* the mines for that whole time it would not have much (if any) opportunity to use the wings for flying <not much space for it>.

[Inziladun]

One thing I've wondered about is this: if the Balrogs could really fly, why couldn't they have been searching for Gondolin from the air, after Húrin gave away its general location to Morogth? Why did it take the capture of Maeglin to allow the city to be found?

Sure, the Eagles were present to keep watch, but would a Balrog really not be up to facing a giant bird?

[skip spence]

All further posts and arguments are redundant: the mystery has thusly been solved.

Nice try! :p

I feel obliged to point out that even though your assumptions were to be correct and the Balrog really was suffering from muscle atrophy and amnesia that would only help to explain why it couldn't fly if it had wings. Your arguments do nothing to prove or disprove that the Balrog had wings in the first place. And yes I'm aware they were tongue-in-cheek and, you know, the very idea of winged Balrogs vainly flapping their stunted wings like a barn-yard chicken is very amusing for sure...

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Aha!

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1185029_99121466003_BitzBalrogWingsMain_873x627.j pg

[HerenIstarion]

Do you mean to say Balrogs had attachable plastic wings? :rolleyes:

[narfforc]

Looking at the picture Heren, I think they are metal, either way plastic or metal, they look nothing like shadowy wings to me, are you sure they dont belong to a Vampire Figure or a Jurassic Park Pterodactyl Fordim. So the question should be 'Do the Balrogs have Metal or Plastic looking Shadowy Wings?'.

[Galadriel]

One thing I've wondered about is this: if the Balrogs could really fly, why couldn't they have been searching for Gondolin from the air, after Húrin gave away its general location to Morogth? Why did it take the capture of Maeglin to allow the city to be found?

Sure, the Eagles were present to keep watch, but would a Balrog really not be up to facing a giant bird?

Another point...why would the Balrog in Moria have 'leaped across the fissure' instead of flown? I'm sure this has been addressed before. Not sure why I just said that. Only thing is I'm assured that Balrogs have wings but cannot fly.

[Galadriel]

Do you mean to say Balrogs had attachable plastic wings? :rolleyes:

No, plastic wasn't invented at that time :D Maybe velcro?

[narfforc]

Only thing is I'm assured that Balrogs have wings but cannot fly.

A bit like an ostrich, wings but cannot fly. Having been stuck in the Dark Pit for a few thousand years, would they have become defunct or the Balrog had just forgotten he had them. Maybe this is what Tolkien what trying to tell us, they (the wings) had become shadows of their former selves.

[Galadriel]

A bit like an ostrich, wings but cannot fly. Having been stuck in the Dark Pit for a few thousand years, would they have become defunct or the Balrog had just forgotten he had them. Maybe this is what Tolkien what trying to tell us, they (the wings) had become shadows of their former selves.

I mentioned the ostrich bit earlier myself, only I said dodos :p And I agree with you, though one thing foxes me:

Glorfindel and Ecthelion and Fëanor could take on Balrogs (more than one at a time). They were Elves. They died in the end, but that's besides the point. If Gandalf is a Maia, why did he have so much trouble? I know they are not allowed to reveal their full power in ME, but still.

[Puddleglum]

I mentioned the ostrich bit earlier myself, only I said dodos :p And I agree with you, though one thing foxes me:

Glorfindel and Ecthelion and Fëanor could take on Balrogs (more than one at a time). They were Elves. They died in the end, but that's besides the point. If Gandalf is a Maia, why did he have so much trouble? I know they are not allowed to reveal their full power in ME, but still.
I think it's largely situational. Glorfindal managed to take a Balrog over a cliff, Echthelion managed to take one into a deep fountain. I'm not sure that Feanor "took on" Balrogs, it's more that they took HIM on - and killed him without suffering loss.

Largely, I think this all indicates how powerful the Elvish lords were. Remember Fingolfin was able to deal 7 long-lasting wounds to Morgoth himself. Gandalf, as a Maia, may not have been so significantly more powerful than the greatest Elvish lords - at least not in physical prowess (his "power" in the end was in encouraging other beings to join the fight and in showing love to them).

[Galadriel]

I think it's largely situational. Glorfindal managed to take a Balrog over a cliff, Echthelion managed to take one into a deep fountain. I'm not sure that Feanor "took on" Balrogs, it's more that they took HIM on - and killed him without suffering loss.

Largely, I think this all indicates how powerful the Elvish lords were. Remember Fingolfin was able to deal 7 long-lasting wounds to Morgoth himself. Gandalf, as a Maia, may not have been so significantly more powerful than the greatest Elvish lords - at least not in physical prowess (his "power" in the end was in encouraging other beings to join the fight and in showing love to them).

Good point! Though I still feel he ought to have more power (let's just ignore the fact that he's a wrinkled old man who can actually wield a sword lol).

[Puddleglum]

Good point! Though I still feel he ought to have more power (let's just ignore the fact that he's a wrinkled old man who can actually wield a sword lol).
You may have something there.
As I think back to his battle, maybe it can be explained this way.

In the first stage (on the bridge) Gandalf's first aim and priority was to get the company safely out of Moria. Getting caught up in a fight might give orcs & trolls more chance to come on the scene and bar the gate or otherwise attack the fellowship. Thus, he sacrificed his staff in order to break the bridge and, he hoped, take the Balrog out of the picture long enough for them to escape.

He obviously did not expect that parting whip-stroke that dragged him into the abyss. A simple mistake, but very costly.

So, in the second stage, he lacked his staff (which is elsewhere shown to be VERY IMPORTANT - for lighting fires, as a lantern, for driving off flying nazgul, for use in healing Theoden <even in the books it was part of the process>, for disarming Gimli, Legolas & Aragorn when they thought him Saruman, and perhaps more). So his offensive power was significantly (and unexpectedly) reduced and he had to improvise. The result was he still killed the Balrog, but only after a long and damaging battle from which he received mortal wounds.

Had the battle been a more formally arranged bout - you know, Bally in the blue corner, Gandy in the red; unlimited rounds, unlimited choice of tactics, No Seconds, one-on-one, to the death - then perhaps Gandalf would have wiped the floor with the Balrog.

Unfortunately, real-life battles (especially the ones that matter) are rarely so cut-and-dried. They come in the midst of other engagements and the parties have to make do with what they have on the spur of the moment. And that, I think, tends to make such contests more chancy and less of a slam-dunk - even if one party is natively stronger.

[Galadriel55]

During the Gandalf-Barlog fight on the bridge, it clearly says that Barlog tried to close its wings over Gandalf's head, but was not able to. This is written proof that barlogs have wings.
However, not in LOTR or in the Silmarillion, is it written that a barlog ever flew. On many occasions barlogs could have benefitted from flying, but it seems that they were not able to. This questions the existence of wings.
My explanation to this is the wings are more of a metaphore for willpower of darkness. The fight between Barly and Gandy was more of a competition of whose will is stronger. This means that since Barly was not able to close darkness over Gandy, Gandy had more power and a stronger will at the moment. That is why Barly was required to use physical force - simply the power of his will and thought was not enough.

[Inziladun]

During the Gandalf-Barlog fight on the bridge, it clearly says that Barlog tried to close its wings over Gandalf's head, but was not able to. This is written proof that barlogs have wings.

Ah, if it were that clear-cut this debate would have been over long ago.

I assume you're referring to this quote:

[The Balrog] stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall.... The Bridge of Khazad-Dûm

That in itself might seem rather straightforward, but a couple of paragraphs before we have this line:

[Gandalf's] enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.

The fact that it says there "like two vast wings" leaves open the interpretation that the shadows gave the Balrog the appearance of possessing wings.

My explanation to this is the wings are more of a metaphore for willpower of darkness. The fight between Barly and Gandy was more of a competition of whose will is stronger. This means that since Barly was not able to close darkness over Gandy, Gandy had more power and a stronger will at the moment. That is why Barly was required to use physical force - simply the power of his will and thought was not enough.

That's an interesting way to view it. To me, it would seem a bit odd for Tolkien to have chosen that means of metaphor, though. Interestingly, the two had already had a "match of wills" you could say, involving the door Gandalf had locked with his power. The Balrog actually succeeded in causing the door to open in spite of Gandalf's spell. Gandalf's word of Command did not necessarily defeat the Balrog's counter-spell; it merely caused the chamber's roof to collapse.

And by the way, welcome to the Downs!

[Galadriel]

My explanation to this is the wings are more of a metaphore for willpower of darkness. The fight between Barly and Gandy was more of a competition of whose will is stronger. This means that since Barly was not able to close darkness over Gandy, Gandy had more power and a stronger will at the moment. That is why Barly was required to use physical force - simply the power of his will and thought was not enough.

Gandy? Balry? :D *laughs* That's new! And welcome to the Downs, twin sister!

[Galadriel55]

Thanks, Galadriel.

I'm just too lazy to write the entire names down, so I used Gandy for Gandalf and Barly for Balrog. :p

[HerenIstarion]

Thanks, Galadriel.

I'm just too lazy to write the entire names down, so I used Gandy for Gandalf and Barly for Balrog. :p

So you had to write the whole new post to explain yourself, testifying to the fact that laziness is not paying off in the long run...:rolleyes:

[Leyrana Silumiel]

So you had to write the whole new post to explain yourself, testifying to the fact that laziness is not paying off in the long run...:rolleyes:

Indeed. It's an additional two whole letters to write the correct name lol. It reminds me of people who type "tha" or "da" because they're too lazy to type "the."

[Galadriel]

Thanks, Galadriel.

I'm just too lazy to write the entire names down, so I used Gandy for Gandalf and Barly for Balrog. :p

I've heard worse though. Fingolfin was Fingy, Finarfin was Arfy, and Fëanor was Fee :D

[proxious]

i would agree with gladriel

[Galadriel55]

Anyways,
Ah, if it were that clear-cut this debate would have been over long ago.

I assume you're referring to this quote:

The Bridge of Khazad-Dûm

That in itself might seem rather straightforward, but a couple of paragraphs before we have this line:



The fact that it says there "like two vast wings" leaves open the interpretation that the shadows gave the Balrog the appearance of possessing wings.



That's an interesting way to view it. To me, it would seem a bit odd for Tolkien to have chosen that means of metaphor, though. Interestingly, the two had already had a "match of wills" you could say, involving the door Gandalf had locked with his power. The Balrog actually succeeded in causing the door to open in spite of Gandalf's spell. Gandalf's word of Command did not necessarily defeat the Balrog's counter-spell; it merely caused the chamber's roof to collapse.

I agree with you on the wings:Balrogs probably don't have them, since Gandalf threw on off a bridge, Glorfindel threw one off a cliff, etc. Also, what's the use of "You shal not pass!" if the Balrog can simply fly around you? I wish I haven't voted "yes" for this question...
About the battle of wills, that's exactly what I mean!