Do Balrogs Have Wings?

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

I've done years of pondering on this.

I started out as a pro-winger, using the 'if they don't, why'd Tolkien use the word 'wings'' argument.

Then I saw the movie, and thought 'hey, if the movie people think they had wings, they must have researched it clearly, right?'

I also thought since John Howe thought they had wings, and he must have scanned this in detail to do his sweet art, it was an option.

Then, in the last year, after reading the books a few more times, I went anti-wing. I can't remember my reasoning why. I'm sure it was legit ... it doesn't matter now.

Because here is the unyielding, unchanging, inarguable truth about Balrogs ...

Are you ready?

Here goes;

Balrogs have NO discernable features whatsoever.

That's right. And Tolkien wanted it that way, otherwise he would have been more clear in his description, just like how he was clear in EVERYTHING else's descriptions.

Imagine some smoke. Imagine slightly man-shaped even darker smoke in that cloud of smoke. Throw some glowing red eyes in the vicinity of the face. Light the smoke trailing off the 'headish cloud' on fire.

That's a Balrog. Yes, I personally think it's a solid being. Yes, I think the sooty, ashy movie Balrog's skin is a pretty accurate interpretation. Yes, both arguments for and against wings are good.

But logic dictates that if neither argument has a definitive, inarguable proof of being the correct truth, than neither of them can themselves be true.

The argument is irrelevent.

Thanks for coming out.

[Finwe-89]

Ok, Balrogs did NOT have wings, Tolkien made own pictures of his books, here's a link to a picture of a Balrog that as been made by Tolkien:


http://img-fan.theonering.net/rolozo...ith/bridge.jpg

[Mister Underhill]

That painting is not by Tolkien; it's by Ted Nasmith.

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

Ugh ... Nasmith.

He couldn't resist the scales and tail, and reptilian feature. And who ever said Balrogs had horns? And yet EVERYBODY draws them with horns, or paints them with horns. And I see the "devil" influence even goes to that pointy end on it's tail.

Oh well, at least Nasmith got the size about right. But it seems awfully ... Trollish.

And it's scales look like the creature from that episode of Star Trek, you know the one, the evil puddle who kills Tasha Yar.

If it was darker and all you could see was Gandalf, the fiery mane, and the eyes and nose, it'd be better. That evil shadow is supposed to shut out even the brightest, Gandalfiest of light.

[Neithan]

And the invented adjective of the day is...Gandalfiest.
Seriously though that pic was really bad.

P.S. Balrogs don't have wings.

[Aiwendil]

Yes, Nasmith's Balrogs are not so good - though I'm very fond of much of his other work. Actually, though, I'm not that satisfied with a lot of Balrog art - this is one area where I think the Hildebrandts, John Howe, and Alan Lee are not up to their usual standard.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Yes, Nasmith's Balrogs are not so good - though I'm very fond of much of his other work. Actually, though, I'm not that satisfied with a lot of Balrog art - this is one area where I think the Hildebrandts, John Howe, and Alan Lee are not up to their usual standard.

But how do you properly capture the image of a creature described in terms like "shadow", whose chief defining physical trait (wings) doesn't actually exist (remember, I'm a no-winger ) or at least isn't conclusively supported, and who is described as by Tolkien as having no need to speak as it's mere presence was fearful. In the same way as it had no need of a voice, it really had no need of a particular form (although it did have one) to evoke its terror. It simply WAS terror.

How do you evoke "terror" in a visual image?

I don't know the answer, but the answer of many artists would seem to be to fall back on motifs familiar to us as evil, such as horns and pointed tails (and wings? )