Do Balrogs Have Wings? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Reg Pither · 09-21-2005, 05:54 AM

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.

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 · 11-07-2005, 10:38 AM

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

Quote:

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 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.)

Quote:

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 · 11-07-2005, 12:05 PM

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

Folwren · 11-22-2005, 03:11 PM

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 · 11-22-2005, 03:27 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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'.

View Poll Results: Do balrogs have wings?
Yes	114	58.16%
No	82	41.84%
Voters: 196. You may not vote on this poll

11-07-2005, 12:05 PM	#3
bilbo_baggins Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: May 2003 Location: In my front hallway, grabbing my staff, about to head out my door Posts: 275	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 __________________ "For with much wisdom comes much sorrow, and with more knowledge comes more grief." Last edited by bilbo_baggins; 11-07-2005 at 12:09 PM.

11-22-2005, 03:11 PM	#4
Folwren Messenger of Hope Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a tiny, insignificant little town in one of the many States. Posts: 5,076	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 __________________ A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. - C.S. Lewis

09-21-2005, 05:54 AM	#1
Reg Pither Pile O'Bones Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: London Posts: 23	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. 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.