[Kransha]

Ah, a question I have carefully avoided answering, despite the debates, ceaseless as they are, that sway my opinions.

Now, though, in the culminating resolution (in poll form, no less), raised by the scholarly Professor Hedgethistle, I must cast my die...or something.

I try to use logic when thinking over the problem, rather than diggin through references. Usually, I like debates with supportive facts, but the Balrog-wings debate is no simple debate, so I only use straight book-reference, no Letters or Silmarillion extras. Those are my grounds. Here are, in my mind, the different supported cases that could be argued, regardless of illogic:

Case #1 - Balrogs have no wings, and the description of Balrogs is completely metaphoric.
Case #2 - Balrogs have "shadow projections," wing-like structures that are not really wings, but kinda are.
Case #3 - Balrogs have useless wings, like some flightless though winged animals.
Case #4 - Balrogs have vestigial wings for intimidation purposes
Case #5 - Balrogs have capes, ala Batman (copyright DC Comics, 19something5)

Well, now I must go through the process of approval or dissaproval.

Case #1 seems senseless when taken literally. Obviously the Balrogs had SOMETHING that the Fellowship saw, and weren't just big flaming giants. So, this case is illegimately disproved. I think that, despite Tolkien's penchant for metaphor, despite cordial dislike of allegory, he was not trying to indicate that Balrogs had no protrusions of any kind. To me, that puts the kibosh on Case #1.

Case #2 is a pretty legit deal. Shadowy, semi-magical projections are, in essence, a good case to plead for. They would not allow the Balrogs to fly in principle, but still match the description fit, and are, via the invention of the simile; "like wings." In order, though, to research the use of the term "wings" ala Balrogs one must discover what wings are. Even though this principle analysis of wings may have been conducted before, I'll do it again for the benefit of others.

According to Webster's Seventh New Collegate Dictionary, published in 1961 (one of the nearest publications to the time of the books' publication, I believe), a wing is:

1. a; one of the moveable feathered or membranous paired appendages by means of which a bird, bat, or insect is able to fly; b; any of the various organic structures (esp. of a flying fish or flying lemur) providing means of limited flight; 2. an appendage or part likened to a wing in shape, appearance, or position, as a: a device used for swimming attached to the shoulders; b: a turned-back or extended edge on an article of clothin; c: a sidepiece at the top of an armchair; d: a foliacious, membranous, or woody expansion of a plant; e: a vane of a windmill or arrow; f: a sail; g: one of the airfoils that develope. . .et cetera

Most of that is just misleading. Just wipe from your minds definitions 2:a-2:g, though the actual second definition is intriguing. Perhaps the term wing does apply to Balrog appendages using Definition 2 or 1:b (means of limited flight i.e. flying fish - lemur). The definitions provide evidence for Case #3 and #4 in a sense, but you have to analyze and re-analyze to discover if ol' dead Webster was actually in agreement with one or the other. Vestigial or useless wings are semi-common (vestigial wings are not, but it is not an inane or foreign concept).

In fact, Case #4 goes hand in hand with Case #2. If Balrogs have vestigial wings, they function on the same principle as shadowy extra appendages, intimidating/scaring/just being there sorts of things that serve little more purpose. But, were Balrogs designed to be scary or effective? Melkor seemed to be pretty with the idea of effectiveness in his monsters, but he did sacrifice intelligence when making orcs, possibly, as well as the ability to withstand sunlight, which means that maybe he was more concerned with making scary creatures that couldn't fly. But, it is awfully silly to give something wings that don't work, or to have wings that don't work. Balrogs may not have been created by Morgoth literally, or they may have been, but it seems that, in a world of villainous, fiendish efficiency, the Pits of Utumno and realm of the Dark Enemy, things with wings would fly. So, perhaps they really didn't have anything that allowed them to fly. So, Case #4 is assimilated into Case #2. Case #3 went bye-bye a while back. That leaves:

Case #1 - Doubtful
Case #2 - Strange, but plausible
Case #5 - Just plain weird...but...

If I may entertain a totally serious idea – maybe Balrogs wear capes?

Hey, it’s possible. This is, of course, far more of a humorous prospect, but it does make sense, to a degree; giant capes, possibly bionic or grafted onto their shoulders. Some artists have depicted Balrogs as wearing clothes of a sort, armor and the like. Trolls and orcs wore clothes, or so we are led to believe, on occasion. Maybe Balrogs did too? Maybe Morgoth had them fitted with trended, wing-like capes, clipped to their elbows and wrists so they could flap about and look as if they had wings. Maybe they just liked the feel of capes, and kept them around, which provided a shadowy illusion, as well as intimidation, as well as the ideals of wings, as well as the concept of fire-resistant material. Maybe….

Or maybe I’m off my rocker.

But, seriously, there is my contribution. Balrog capes.

As far as the Balrog in Moria, I like to think that it had wings but, because it had spent so much time underground in a relatively confined space, its wings no longer allowed it to fly. Perhaps Morgoth’s original Valarauka could fly, but the Moria Balrog could not, and thus, fell (on several occasions) to some degree of doom. Poor balrog. Jerry Springer would’ve had a field day.

So, I cast a vote for Balrog Capes.

For the poll, I vote yes…unofficially.