Wings or No? [Archive] - Page 3

Gothmog

03-09-2005, 01:10 PM

Balrogs are "Self-incarnated" Maiar, They do not at any time indulge in any form of flight (with of course the notable exception of very swift retreat on foot or by falling).

So considering that wings would serve no purpose to the Balrog (an Apparent increase in size is achieved by the shadow that surrounds the Balrog), why would any being capable of choosing its own shape encumber itself with apendages that would only serve to cause it problems by getting in the way of its movements?

Personally, when I first read the LotR, my view of the Balrog was, due to the discription in the book, that of a creature without wings and surrounded by an "UnLight" that could be extended to make it seem larger. Argumanets and pictures that I have seen since have all failed to alter this first impression gained from Tolkien's words.

Arvedui

03-09-2005, 07:54 PM

I am looking at your Avatar, Gothmog. ANd the Balrog there has no wings, so I guess that settles it.... :D

Celebthôl

03-11-2005, 09:24 PM

For years I held the belief that Balrogs had wings, and I held fast to it. Then, gradually, my beliefs and opinions shifted towards the no-wing 'camp'. When looking at all the evidence laid out before us, wingless Balrogs simply make more sense than winged ones.

Yeah, but wings are more menacing...right Ithy? ;)
I mean, it makes a menacing monster, even more menacing. Plus it looks real cool! :cool:

Gothmog

03-11-2005, 10:35 PM

Yeah, but wings are more menacing...right Ithy? ;)
I mean, it makes a menacing monster, even more menacing. Plus it looks real cool! :cool:
I have seen this idea put forward a number of times as good reason for the Balrog to have wings. Yet I still find it strangely unconvincing, perhaps because of this:
What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and go before it.
When I see the comment "Wings are more menacing" I always wonder just how wings that cannot be seen in the menacing shadow could make the Balrog more "menacing"? ;)

Celebthôl

03-11-2005, 10:49 PM

Well, if the Balrog came out into the sunlight, say when Glorfindel had his battle, and the shadow was extinguished due to the sunlight, it would be more menacing if the being after losing his shadow had massive wings to make it look bigger instead of nothing and I get this really runty and defeated looking image of a balrog when I think of a balrog with no wings, sort of standing there looking kind of limp with his hands at his sides and his whip and sword in his hands but pointing/resting on the floor. Hehe, but thats just me. ;)

Hammersmith

03-12-2005, 08:15 AM

When I see the comment "Wings are more menacing" I always wonder just how wings that cannot be seen in the menacing shadow could make the Balrog more "menacing"? ;)
Naturally if the wings were obscured by smoke, the smoke would cover that much more of an area than a smoked and wingless Balrog.

Gothmog

03-12-2005, 07:55 PM

Naturally if the wings were obscured by smoke, the smoke would cover that much more of an area than a smoked and wingless Balrog.
:confused: :confused: What smoke?

The Balrog was surrounded by a Shadow not by the free-floating carbonised remains of combustion.

Hammersmith

03-12-2005, 08:56 PM

:confused: :confused: What smoke?

The Balrog was surrounded by a Shadow not by the free-floating carbonised remains of combustion.
I used shadow and smoke synonymously. Because someone before me did. The point stands. More wings equals more shadow to be around them. A runty wingless Balrog would have a third less shadow, at a conservative estimate or arbitrary assumption, than a winged and shadowed Balrog.

Gothmog

03-13-2005, 01:13 AM

I used shadow and smoke synonymously. Because someone before me did. The point stands. More wings equals more shadow to be around them. A runty wingless Balrog would have a third less shadow, at a conservative estimate or arbitrary assumption, than a winged and shadowed Balrog.
Arbitrary and baseless assumption. Why would wings make any difference to the shadow of the Balrog? The Shadow was not caused by light behind the Balrog where the physical size of the the creature would determine the size of the shadow. The Shadow was an 'Un-light' that the Balrog could extend at will to whatever extent it chose.

Aiglos

03-13-2005, 09:48 AM

Look... If Balrogs spend so much time falling off cliffs and other various opportune precipices, how can they have wings, or at least how can they have wings that work....?

It DOES look cool for them to have wings though..... :D

Greenwood

03-13-2005, 01:27 PM

If Balrogs spend so much time falling off cliffs and other various opportune precipices, how can they have wings, or at least how can they have wings that work....?Just because they have wings does not automatically mean they can fly. I can give you a long list of birds with wings that cannot fly. ;)

Hammersmith

03-13-2005, 06:43 PM

Arbitrary and baseless assumption. Why would wings make any difference to the shadow of the Balrog? The Shadow was not caused by light behind the Balrog where the physical size of the the creature would determine the size of the shadow. The Shadow was an 'Un-light' that the Balrog could extend at will to whatever extent it chose.
"To whatever extent it chose"?
So by that argument, a Balrog in Mordor could extend unlight all the way to Valinor?
No. It makes more sense that the Balrog could exude the smoke/unlight from its body, by which logic the greater the Balrog's bulk, the more unlight it could produce.

@Greenwood: Good point!

Annaheru

03-13-2005, 08:04 PM

But birds don't create their own bodies. Useless wing for a creature that made its own physical form is just silly.And a Balrog's shadow extension is not limitless, but that doesn't make wings any more likely. If a Balrog's shadow is a rejection of light (or absorption, same effect), then the extension of that shadow would only be limited by the inherent power of the Balrog which is not limited to a Balrog's physical mass.

Celebthôl

03-13-2005, 08:05 PM

Haha! YES! Looks like we got ourselves an old fasioned argument on our hands boys! :cool:

Greenwood

03-13-2005, 09:03 PM

But birds don't create their own bodies. Useless wing for a creature that made its own physical form is just silly.I think I will just ignore the potential for a thrilling: "What came first, the chicken or the egg debate?" :D

Sticking to balrogs, it must be remembered that they are creations of Tolkien's imagination and if he decided they had wings (or even just one of them), than wings it is. Arguments based on utility have no standing. Even within the confines of Middle Earth, arguments based on utility would be pointless since, as you say the balrogs chose their own form -- they didn't evolve. Maybe a balrog thought wings were "cool". :cool: :)

Hammersmith

03-13-2005, 09:48 PM

Remember also that even flightless birds do not find wings "useless". They can use them in fighting, attracting mates and frightening foes/predators.

Gothmog

03-14-2005, 12:09 AM

"To whatever extent it chose"?
So by that argument, a Balrog in Mordor could extend unlight all the way to Valinor?
No. It makes more sense that the Balrog could exude the smoke/unlight from its body, by which logic the greater the Balrog's bulk, the more unlight it could produce.
Perhaps he could, we only know for certain that this Balrog could extend the Unlight from wall to wall within the confines of Moria.
Why does make more sense?? I agree that the Balrog exudes the unlight from its self. However, it would not be the bulk of the body but the power of the spirit that would determine the amount of space that could be encompassed by its unlight.

Sticking to balrogs, it must be remembered that they are creations of Tolkien's imagination and if he decided they had wings (or even just one of them), than wings it is.
Yes they are indeed creations fo Tolkien's mind. And Tolkien changed his discription of the Balrog from a clearly seen creature to one cloaked in shadow. So if Tolkien decided that they had wings he certainly did not let on to anybody about it.

Greenwood

03-14-2005, 02:19 AM

Remember also that even flightless birds do not find wings "useless". They can use them in fighting, attracting mates and frightening foes/predators.True in some, cases, but certainly not all. Some fligthless birds such as the extinct Great Auk and penguins use their wings to "fly" underwater, but in other birds such as ostrichs, emus, cassowaries, etc., the wings are pretty useless wings. The original point, however, was the suggestion that wings automatically implied the power of flight. They don't.

Yes they are indeed creations fo Tolkien's mind. And Tolkien changed his discription of the Balrog from a clearly seen creature to one cloaked in shadow. So if Tolkien decided that they had wings he certainly did not let on to anybody about it.You mean with a sentence something like: "It 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; .... " [from The Bridge of Khazad-dum in ROTK, emphasis added] I am well aware of the sentence two paragraphs earlier that says: "... the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings." It is the interpretation of these two sentences that gives rise to this discussion. :D

Gothmog

03-14-2005, 03:11 PM

You mean with a sentence something like: "It 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; .... " [from The Bridge of Khazad-dum in ROTK, emphasis added] I am well aware of the sentence two paragraphs earlier that says: "... the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings." It is the interpretation of these two sentences that gives rise to this discussion. :D
No I actually mean with a separate comment either in one of his letters or in his notes. As you point out the two sentences prevent a clear answer to the question.

It is my view that Tolkien did this deliberately. He allowed us to put in our own demon rather than impose his idea of it. :)

Greenwood

03-14-2005, 04:25 PM

It is my view that Tolkien did this deliberately. He allowed us to put in our own demon rather than impose his idea of it.You may be right. Obviously, none of us now can know what was in Tolkien's mind when he wrote it. Personally, I think Tolkien had a view of what balrogs looked like and the reason he left no comments about it is no one asked him. I suspect if he had been asked he would have given an answer one way or the other on wings. But, maybe not. ;) :)

Gothmog

03-14-2005, 05:07 PM

I agree that Tolkien probably had his view of the Balrog. He chose to hide it in the unlight (which is possibly why there is nothing in his notes). :)

I think that had he been asked he would have still left the question open, it would have been a shame to take such trouble to hide the exact shape of the Balrog and then give a clear answer later. :)

It also gives an un-answerable question to be chwed over any time things get too quiet. :D ;)

Barliman Butterbur

03-14-2005, 05:32 PM

I keep telling you people — it's one wing, growing right out of his spine! :eek:

Barley

Hammersmith

03-14-2005, 05:48 PM

It is my view that Tolkien did this deliberately. He allowed us to put in our own demon rather than impose his idea of it. :)

Just to be even more pedantic, I notice that you've adopted the common term of demon for the Balrog, as describing a fallen Maiar spirit. Would the faithful Maiar thus be called angels?

Greenwood

03-14-2005, 08:24 PM

It also gives an un-answerable question to be chewed over any time things get too quiet.There is always the Glorfindel/Glorfindels question, not to mention my personal favorite, the dreaded Uruk-hai vs. uruks. :D

Ithrynluin

03-14-2005, 08:53 PM

There is always the Glorfindel/Glorfindels question

:eek:
I thought the question of Glorfindel was quite settled, in that they are indeed one and the same!

Celebthôl

03-14-2005, 09:13 PM

Haha! You wish Ithy! If it was that simple...;)

Theres also the Tom Bombadil side of things aswell. :cool:

Gothmog

03-14-2005, 09:28 PM

Just to be even more pedantic, I notice that you've adopted the common term of demon for the Balrog, as describing a fallen Maiar spirit. Would the faithful Maiar thus be called angels?
Only if this was a statement made by a "Christian" in relation to the Christian Mythology.

Looking in the dictionary I find:
Demon n a devil or evil spirit.

Demons are found in many mythologies few of which also include 'Angels'. Personally I used Demon to mean an 'evil spirit', nothing more, nothing less.

There is always the Glorfindel/Glorfindels question, not to mention my personal favorite, the dreaded Uruk-hai vs. uruks. Tokien did answer the Glorfindel question in his notes. However, Uruk-hai vs. uruks may still have some life in it :)

Ithrynluin

03-14-2005, 09:35 PM

Haha! You wish Ithy! If it was that simple...;)

Oh but it is that simple. See HoME XII: The Peoples of Middle-earth. Now let's get back to the topic of Balrog wings.

BTW, delightful to see you around here, Thol! :cool:

Hammersmith

03-15-2005, 05:14 AM

Only if this was a statement made by a "Christian" in relation to the Christian Mythology.

Okay...so in relation to the Balrog being dubbed a "demon", what would the Maiar be called, who did not side with Melkor? For that matter, what would the non-fire Maiar who did side with him be called? :p

Greenwood

03-15-2005, 06:19 AM

Gothmog and Ithrynluin,

Yes, I am familiar with Tolkien's rather tortured attempts to deal with his reuse of the name Glorfindel in LOTR after killing him in The Sil. He should have just left it as an oops. His notes indicate that it was a "random" reuse of a name without full consideration before the publication of LOTR.

Flame of Udûn

03-15-2005, 06:57 AM

Gothmog

03-15-2005, 12:16 PM

Okay...so in relation to the Balrog being dubbed a "demon", what would the Maiar be called, who did not side with Melkor? For that matter, what would the non-fire Maiar who did side with him be called? :p
The Maiar who did not side with Melkor were were 'Maiar' considered within the view of Arda to be "Good Spirits" and linked to one of the Valar of the West. Those who sided with Melkor, weather of the element of fire or not, would be considered to be "Evil Spirits" therefore can be called 'Demons'

Gothmog and Ithrynluin,

Yes, I am familiar with Tolkien's rather tortured attempts to deal with his reuse of the name Glorfindel in LOTR after killing him in The Sil. He should have just left it as an oops. His notes indicate that it was a "random" reuse of a name without full consideration before the publication of LOTR.
Nice argument but one better left to another thread methinks :)

Celebthôl

03-16-2005, 09:40 PM

Oh but it is that simple. See HoME XII: The Peoples of Middle-earth. Now let's get back to the topic of Balrog wings.

BTW, delightful to see you around here, Thol! :cool:

Right-O chap! Good to see you again too mate, you know I couldn't keep away forever! :cool:

Hammersmith

05-27-2005, 09:20 PM

The Maiar who did not side with Melkor were were 'Maiar' considered within the view of Arda to be "Good Spirits" and linked to one of the Valar of the West. Those who sided with Melkor, weather of the element of fire or not, would be considered to be "Evil Spirits" therefore can be called 'Demons'

That logic works for me. I assume that Sauron would also be a demon then (having been a Maiar before). Did he maintain that status alongside being a dark lord when Morgoth was out of the picture? And would Morgoth as a fallen Valar also be considered a demon?

I'm bickering about semantics, I know, but I am genuinely interested.

Gothmog

05-27-2005, 10:59 PM

That logic works for me. I assume that Sauron would also be a demon then (having been a Maiar before). Did he maintain that status alongside being a dark lord when Morgoth was out of the picture? And would Morgoth as a fallen Valar also be considered a demon?

I'm bickering about semantics, I know, but I am genuinely interested.
In my view Sauron was also a demon and remained such until the destruction of the One Ring (and possibly after, though in such a weakened state as to be powerless) Morgoth as a fallen Valar would have been the greatest of Demons to ever walk in Arda.

I don't see any problem with questions on the semantics, it allows us a clearer understanding of each others views :)

ingolmo

06-07-2005, 05:22 AM

Now to get back on subject, as to whether Balrog's have wings or not, here is my proof that they do not have wings.

From the FotR: The Bridge of Khazad-Dum:

His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings. It raised it's whip, and the thongs whined and cracked. Fire came from it's nostrils. But Gandalf stood firm.

Then, one paragraph later:

It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and it's wings were spread from wall to wall;

The Balrog's shadow came out like two vast wings. This means that the it's shadow is compared to wings. The second time the word 'wings' is used, it still means it's wide shadow, which is compared to wings.

I hope I've made my point clear.

Greenwood

06-07-2005, 04:07 PM

Or the two quotes together could mean that there were wings causing the shadow. :D

The quotes are ambiguous and unless someone discovers a letter or scrap of paper in Tolkien's own hand where he specifically addresses the question, it is going to remain a matter of opinion. :)

Alatar

06-07-2005, 05:56 PM

How about that if balrogs had wings, then the wouldn't be prone to falling off large hights; glorindels balrog fell down, durins bane fell from zirak zigl& the bridge of khazad dum.

Durin's Bane

06-07-2005, 06:32 PM

Ingolmo made a very good point (just as several other before him) but no one will listen.
I don't realy see where you saw the wings-causing-shadow-logic in the quote Greenwood and i am a pretty logical person, it's clearly shadows reaching like wings from wall to wall not wings from wall to wall causing shadows in there.
And for Alatar ,thanks for sharing my position, but having wings doesn't mean you can fly (see the penguins and the ostriches) so i don't think that'd be a good point to defend.
Personaly I think that the moria balrog atleast (me actualy) forced the shadows he commanded to take the form of wings so it can be said that he 'had' wings, but not like they are material and atached to his (my) body.

Alatar

06-07-2005, 06:35 PM

But the balrog is a maia so if i was changing into a demon of fire and i gave myself wings i would go to the trouble of making them work.
but hey whatever, i havn't decided yet.

Durin's Bane

06-07-2005, 06:41 PM

I think it was actually morgoth who created the balrogs' forms.

But i think it's a good point, why have wings when you are not able to use them?
Hm, i think i can start arguing with myself on the matter... wings do look scary... so... why not have one...
Ok, we are sharing the same position so why argue on other matters.
Balrogs didn't have wings!

Ingwë

06-09-2005, 04:00 PM

Great thread.

I voted that the Balrogs have wings. I have always thought that they have. I like the quote of ReadWryt.

The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It 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; but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: grey and bent, like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm.

Greenwood

06-09-2005, 04:54 PM

I don't realy see where you saw the wings-causing-shadow-logic in the quote Greenwood and i am a pretty logical person, it's clearly shadows reaching like wings from wall to wall not wings from wall to wall causing shadows in there.The first quote could well be read as referring only to shadows and if that was the only mention Tolkien made of wings and balrogs I would say the case was pretty clear. However, as has been pointed out, in the next paragraph Tolkien describes the balrog's wings as spreading from wall to wall. Tolkien does not qualify "wings" that second time. He does not say "shadow wings" or "wings of shadow", he just calls them wings. In that context, the earlier description could be taken to mean that the balrog's form was hidden in shadow (presumably self generated). Only when the balrogs steps forward and spreads them to you see the actual wings. Personally, I lean towards balrogs having wings, but I think the passage is ambiguous as it stands so it really comes down to a matter of opinion.

As you said earlier, the presence of wings does not automatically mean the power of flight. There are certainly flightless animals in the real world who possess wings.

Durin's Bane

06-09-2005, 05:33 PM

Yeah, cause he has already qualified them as "shadow wings" or "wings of shadow", so why repeat himself?

Greenwood

06-09-2005, 06:00 PM

Yeah, cause he has already qualified them as "shadow wings" or "wings of shadow", so why repeat himself?Why not just say "it's shadow was spread from wall to wall" if all Tolkien meant was a shadow? And look at the sentence: "It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and it's wings were spread from wall to wall". Everything else in the sentence is the balrog actively doing something -- it steps forward, it raises itself up -- but then suddenly we switch to something insubstantial such as its shadow. Why not consider that Tolkien is still describing something the balrog is actively doing -- it spreads it's wings.

Durin's Bane

06-09-2005, 06:16 PM

Why not just say "it's shadow was spread from wall to wall" if all Tolkien meant was a shadow?
Because tha shadow had the form of wings and that's my point: there isn't just shadow behind him or just wings- there was a great shadow in the form of vast wings and no one can tell whether there were realy wings in that shadow!!!

Alatar

06-09-2005, 06:17 PM

I am undecieded, actually, i think that the qoutes mean it had wings.
And as for flying, would wings made of shadow and flame actually help, i do not think so .

Ingwë

06-10-2005, 03:56 PM

Because tha shadow had the form of wings and that's my point: there isn't just shadow behind him or just wings- there was a great shadow in the form of vast wings and no one can tell whether there were realy wings in that shadow!!!The Shadow has the form of Wings? I think that is impossible. The Shadow is the Balrog on the ground :D and what do you think are the Wings in that Shadow? Are they the hands of the Balrog?

Durin's Bane

06-10-2005, 04:34 PM

Ok, the balrog jumped over the fire, which means that the source of light would be behind him, but he is not great enough to fill the whole hall, so how come the shadow spreads from wall to wall? He can command it to take any form he wishes!

Ingwë

06-10-2005, 05:03 PM

Durin's Bane

06-10-2005, 05:21 PM

Greenwood

06-10-2005, 05:35 PM

Because tha shadow had the form of wings and that's my point: there isn't just shadow behind him or just wings- there was a great shadow in the form of vast wings and no one can tell whether there were realy wings in that shadow!!!When you say "no one can tell whether there were realy wings in that shadow", I guess you are agreeing with me when I said the passage is ambiguous.

Ingwë

06-10-2005, 05:36 PM

(offtopic- nice avatar!!!)
I believe he was busy with Gandalf on the bridge, not in the hall, I believe he was busy scaring his oponents there, meaning making the shadows take offensive and fearful form (of wings). And he did the same on the bridge. Influence fear by making the shadows look like wings and thus achieving an even greater form, that would normaly encumber him.

That interesting. Perhaps he wanted to scare the others. But how can he make wings? If he has wings he can make them look bigger and thus to scare the Fellowship - that is greater form.
Indeed the Balrogs can't fly and these wings are useless but I still think they have wings.

[offtopic-thank you]

Greenwood, 1499 posts! :)

Alatar

06-10-2005, 06:05 PM

Good avatar.
the shadow fill the whole hall as he want to scare them, he sences whjat gandalf is, so cuts of light to try to make him despair.

Durin's Bane

06-10-2005, 06:26 PM

When you say "no one can tell whether there were realy wings in that shadow", I guess you are agreeing with me when I said the passage is ambiguous.

Yes, all we are certain is that there was shadow all around him and something inside. I personaly believe that it was not wings and I don't see why there should be any.

Alatar

06-10-2005, 06:32 PM

What ever we do, there is no solid proof. This can be maded worst by the fact that even is this balrog had wings, did all others? and vice versa.
but if you get a idea of how you think it looks like, then it is likely that you will stick to that imge for your own reasons. Like i have a picture of a green fell beat, *shudder*

Durin's Bane

06-10-2005, 06:37 PM

What ever we do, there is no solid proof. This can be maded worst by the fact that even is this balrog had wings, did all others? and vice versa.
I believe we can all agree on the idea that not all the balrogs looked alike (I think it was mine in the first place:p ) and that we have no proof what's under Durin's Bane's (mine:cool: ) shadow.

Ingwë

06-10-2005, 07:00 PM

I believe we can all agree on the idea that not all the balrogs looked alike (I think it was mine in the first place:p ) and that we have no proof what's under Durin's Bane's (mine:cool: ) shadow.
Yes, that's very good, my Bulgarian fellow. :)
But we mustn't forget Gothmog, the Lord of Balrogs. I don't know but I think he has no wings. :(
And a Balrog fight with Ecthelion but there is no info that he has wings but it ia said that Durin's bane has. They don't look alike :)

Alatar

06-10-2005, 07:24 PM

I think there might be some info in the book of lost tales, but i don't know. I will have to reread it.

ingolmo

06-11-2005, 11:39 AM

I repeat again, 'and his wings were spread from wall to wall' means his shadow spread from wall to wall. The shadow is being compared to and called 'wings'.
It's a literary effect, you know. :o

Hammersmith

06-11-2005, 08:45 PM

I repeat again, 'and his wings were spread from wall to wall' means his shadow spread from wall to wall. The shadow is being compared to and called 'wings'.
It's a literary effect, you know. :o
That's neither here nor there. That's a possibility, though just as/less likely to be literal wings.

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before...but would it be a possibility that some Balrogs had wings while others did not? A subgenus of Balrog, or even privilege granted to certain spirits above others? Or is that just silly?

Durin's Bane

06-11-2005, 11:01 PM

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before...but would it be a possibility that some Balrogs had wings while others did not? A subgenus of Balrog, or even privilege granted to certain spirits above others? Or is that just silly?
I raised the matter a few pages before. Who says all the balrogs look alike? Some may even have wings not as a privilege but just because they look cool on their back.
Hm, if that is the case and we were all balrogs here then there would be 223 winged and 81 wingless ones...
And since... well.. that matter is settled, we can concentrate ourselves on my case... Do I have wings or no? (hm, we can even change the name of the topic... cause that's basicaly what we would kill each other about...)

ingolmo

06-12-2005, 08:53 AM

No, I don't think so. Morgoth wouldn't have wanted some Balrogs with wings and some without wings, unless it was a matter of rank. The high-rank once getting wings. Still, I don't think that that's true, and I still stick to my original assumptions.
And, that's 100 posts for me!!! :D :D YAY ME!!!

Ingwë

06-12-2005, 09:19 AM

Why do you think that Durin's Bane has no wings? Why do you think it is literaly effect? It is said that the Balrogs have Wings. It is not a shadow or something else. It is said 'his wings' not 'his shadow'.

Hehehe. 350 posts. :)

Durin's Bane

06-12-2005, 12:17 PM

It is said that the Balrogs have Wings.

And where exactly might that be?

Ingwë

06-13-2005, 09:12 AM

Here (again):
The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It 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; but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: grey and bent, like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm.

Durin's Bane

06-13-2005, 09:59 AM

Yeah, but that's just one not all as you said. And even for that one we have:

His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.

(again)

ingolmo

06-13-2005, 10:50 AM

You know my argument. Let's just say that if the Balrog had wings, how come he fell down? Why didn't he fly back up from the abyss to destroy the rest of the members of the fellowship? Because you can fly with wings, and you can't fly with shadows.

Ingwë

06-13-2005, 10:57 AM

Ingolmo, we talk about wings but not big wings. Just Wings. The chicken has wings but it can't fly.

His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings. Yeah, but like two wings, not two wings. My quote says its wings

Durin's Bane

06-13-2005, 11:06 AM

But my quote comes before yours in the book.

So it is first just a shadow which later becomes wings.

ingolmo

06-13-2005, 11:29 AM

Yeah, the quote which Durin's bane posted came before your post, Ingwe. So first the Balrog's shadow's was compared to wings, and the second time, instead of writing, 'and it's shadow's which were like wings were spread from wall-to-wall', Tolkien took it for granted that the readers will understand that even the second time, the wings are being compared to shadows.
Duh.

Alatar

06-13-2005, 07:44 PM

Or, the simple fact that ingolmo you try flying on wings of flame and shadow not alot of air restence.
An i take ingwes quote to stand for what it is, and i trhin that wetas verison of the balrog worked.

Ingwë

06-13-2005, 07:54 PM

But my quote comes before yours in the book.

So it is first just a shadow which later becomes wings.Yeah. I read that moment and I can't believe. But you're right! Congs my dear BG fellow!

Alatar

06-13-2005, 08:05 PM

I am still undecided as the is no proof only a quote that the wings are not mentioned.

ingolmo

06-14-2005, 08:34 AM

Greenwood

06-14-2005, 03:14 PM

First there's Ingwe who needs convincing. Once he understands the truth, Alatar steps into his mantle. For all those who think that Balrogs have wings, read all the evidence in the last 58 pages that Balrogs do not have wings. If you fail to understand the point of 81 people, you are hopeless.Your "evidence" consists of a single ambiguous quote, often coupled with the argument that if the balrog had wings it should be able to fly. However, as has been pointed out many times, there are many creatures in the real world who possess wings who cannot fly so that argument proves nothing. Your latest argument seems to be that 81 people taking part in this poll accept your view. You conveniently fail to mention the 224 people (an almost 3 to 1 margin) who do not accept your view. The numbers of people for or against the position proves nothing.

The passage in LOTR is ambiguous and the question of wings on the balrog is going to remain a matter of opinion barring the discovery of some clear statement in Tolkien's own words.

Hammersmith

06-14-2005, 05:44 PM

Greenwood has the right of it. Whether the Balrog could fly or not is an entirely different kettle of fish, whether the chasm was too narrow, the Balrog too surprised, perhaps it planned on falling with Gandalf where it would have space to fight? That isn't proof by any means.

Likewise, the word "wings" without "like wings" when both passages refer to the same thing is confusing, but in context could point either way. I don't see any reason to guess that the wings changed between literal and ethereal. No reason at all.

Durin's Bane

06-14-2005, 10:35 PM

It was first a shadow (first part of the quote) and then it took the form of wings (second part). So at first the balrog didn't have any, then he made himself a pair to look scarier, not to fly with them. How about that? He can either have or don't, it's entirely his choice.

Hammersmith

06-15-2005, 12:11 AM

Either they do or they don't. No compromise. And I still say he does.

Ingwë

06-15-2005, 10:26 AM

Why do you think that if the Balrog has wings it must fly? :confused:
The real wings can be small.

<<<<<Update>>>>>
I agree with Durin's Bane. Look at the Lord of the Rings, The Bridge of Khazad-Dum or see Balrog's qoute. First: shadow like two wings and next his Two vast wings...

Durin's Bane

06-15-2005, 11:37 AM

This is getting ridiculous!!! It's obvious that we cannot convince each other!!! I give up before the fight starts. Will be back when a new and solid argument is found in support of one of the statements. Until then my position remains unchanged.

Alatar

06-15-2005, 06:08 PM

Youcan not prove it either way, the best is a quote that say's his shadow was like wings, it never says either way.
Durins bane, i'm out too.

ingolmo

06-16-2005, 12:37 PM

The wings were not small, they spread from one wall of Moria to another.
So much for your quote. :p

Alatar

06-16-2005, 07:19 PM

The quote dosn't work as it could be saying that the shadow is the wings, or that his wings spread from wall to wall, a theink tha latter is right but i have no proof or reason so it is a matter of opinion.

Ingwë

06-16-2005, 08:23 PM

The wings were not small, they spread from one wall of Moria to another.
So much for your quote. :pRead my last posts. It is a shadow, not Wings.

Greenwood

06-16-2005, 09:02 PM

Read my last posts. It is a shadow, not Wings.In your opinion. :D

Ingwë

06-16-2005, 09:23 PM

Alatar

06-17-2005, 07:44 PM

I ment to leave this thread, but ingwe i think durins banes right to.

ingolmo

06-20-2005, 01:55 PM

Ithrynluin

06-20-2005, 02:43 PM

Those who have been 'convinced' by your arguments, need to recheck this whole thread from beginning to end, to see that the myriad pro et contra arguments have been refuted countless times. There is no definite solution to this question, whether in the Letters or elsewhere.

ingolmo

06-22-2005, 03:49 PM

I think it is, and that it's quite clear in the chapter, The Bridge of Khazad-Dum. Check out the quotes posted by Durin's Bane and me in the last couple of pages.
Or, check out Gothmog's avatar. It doesn't have wings. ;)

Laire

06-25-2005, 02:39 AM

I always used to think that balrogs don't have wings, the whole image doesn't seem very flyable... But is it possible that there were different kinds of balrogs - with and without wings? Or different stages of their development (like caterpillar and butterfly)? If yes, then both versions are correct.

ingolmo

06-26-2005, 10:36 AM

We've already gone through this argument before, and decided that that is probably not true.

Laire

06-27-2005, 09:07 AM

Then I still insist they didn't:) Surely, IMHO. But really interesting if they could fly (probably, the wings are not necesserily required for it...)

ingolmo

06-27-2005, 12:49 PM

You're talking as if they're supernatural beings, which they probably are. interesting issue, but I think that we should stay on-topic.

Lantarion

07-03-2005, 12:21 AM

You're talking as if they're supernatural beings, which they probably are. interesting issue, but I think that we should stay on-topic.
I'd say Maiar are 'supernatural' by definition, wouldn't you?

Ithrynluin

07-03-2005, 10:26 AM

I think it is, and that it's quite clear in the chapter, The Bridge of Khazad-Dum. Check out the quotes posted by Durin's Bane and me in the last couple of pages.

Your arguments hold as much, or as little, water as do most Balrog wings arguments. It's one thing to hold a belief, or a preferrence, one way or another, and it is quite alright to discuss which arguments are more feasible and which are more far-fetched, but it's completely futile to claim any certainty in this matter.

You might be interested in checking out a FAQ on this issue: this (http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/TAB6.html) is a great one, and it contains links to other FAQs as well.

Greenwood

08-03-2005, 07:05 AM

So, Durin's Bane and I, as some have forgotten, have managed to convince everyone but Greenwood. So, Balrogs have wings that can retract to nothing and to the size of the walls of Moria, you mean to say. As I have said earlier, Tolkien was using a literary effect, comparing the Balrog's shadow to wings. He meant to show that the Balrog's size was so large, that his shadow spread like two huge wings.
Does anyone have The Letters of JRR Tolkien, there might be something explained well over there.So you have convinced everyone but me? Why is your side losing in the poll by nearly 3 to 1?

BTW, I have looked in The Letters of JRR Tolkien. There is nothing relevant there. Ithrynluin is correct that this debate cannot be resolved (barring someone finding some long lost scrap of Tolkien's writings that directly addresses the issue). Given the available evidence, it all comes down to personal opinion.

Arvedui

08-03-2005, 07:26 AM

Your arguments hold as much, or as little, water as do most Balrog wings arguments. It's one thing to hold a belief, or a preferrence, one way or another, and it is quite alright to discuss which arguments are more feasible and which are more far-fetched, but it's completely futile to claim any certainty in this matter.

You might be interested in checking out a FAQ on this issue: this (http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/TAB6.html) is a great one, and it contains links to other FAQs as well.
Thank you very much for that link, ithy. A very good deduction of the "problem."

Although it don't give a full answer to the question.

Ingwë

08-03-2005, 01:57 PM

So you have convinced everyone but me? Why is your side losing in the poll by nearly 3 to 1?
BTW, I have looked in The Letters of JRR Tolkien. There is nothing relevant there. Ithrynluin is correct that this debate cannot be resolved (barring someone finding some long lost scrap of Tolkien's writings that directly addresses the issue). Given the available evidence, it all comes down to personal opinion. I debated about the Wings with my friends... Well, they told me that once Tolkien said that they have Wings but later he said that they don't have. So this is endless thread. We can only speculate using the information that we don't have.

But Ithy's link is very useful. It disproves some of the most popular proofs that the Balrogs have Wings.

Although it don't give a full answer to the question. Yes, I agree :)

Greenwood

08-03-2005, 02:42 PM

But Ithy's link is very useful. It disproves some of the most popular proofs that the Balrogs have Wings.It also shoots down the most popular arguments that the balrogs don't have wings.

Wings are just a matter of opinion.

Fugitive1992

09-20-2005, 10:08 PM

Balrogs do have wings!

for if you who have seen the movie Fellowship of the Ring then you would remember that in Moria when the Balrog spred out his wings and screamed. AHHHH. :)

Gothmog

09-21-2005, 12:04 AM

It does not matter what is put in the films as that is only the view of someone else. The only evidence that matters in this thread comes from the writing of JRR Tolkien.

Celebthôl

09-28-2005, 03:03 AM

It does not matter what is put in the films as that is only the view of someone else. The only evidence that matters in this thread comes from the writing of JRR Tolkien.

Come on people i've said it before, more than once! Listen to Mr. Gothmog, he is after all the lord of all balrogs ;)
They had shadows that certainly looked like wings, no one doubts that, but they couldnt fly with them...

Fugitive1992

09-28-2005, 07:11 PM

This is true.

Noldor_returned

10-25-2005, 09:52 AM

I think that some do and some dont. The one Gandalf fights does, but some of the earlier ones didnt. I also think the only person qualified to say is JRR Tolkien, but hes dead, so, bad luck.

Majimaune

10-25-2005, 09:54 AM

tolkien does not exactly say that they have wings or not and i think that most people who have voted are influence by the movie in which they have wings

thats a good piont that only tolkien can say if they do or they dont but he is dead
I think that some do and some dont. The one Gandalf fights does, but some of the earlier ones didnt. I also think the only person qualified to say is JRR Tolkien, but hes dead, so, bad luck.

Barliman Butterbur

10-25-2005, 04:55 PM

Are we still on this??? I thought I'd settled it two years ago: Balrogs have ONE WING growing out of their spine! Sheeeeeeessss! :eek:

Barley

Pleathe thir, may I have my orange thkin now, pothibly ath a belated birthday prethent? Pretty pleathe with thtrawberrieth on top? Even orangeth...

Fugitive1992

10-25-2005, 10:15 PM

Barliman Butterbur

10-26-2005, 03:46 AM

One wing? Thats odd. You can't fly with only one wing..then again....balrogs CAN'T fly!:eek: thats not cool

It's not odd, it's the Superlatively Elegant and Logical Compromise between those who scream for no wings and those who scream for two. :)

Barley

Majimaune

11-05-2005, 05:28 AM

i say some do some dont
but who cares what i say keep on ging with this debate

Gothmog

11-05-2005, 12:36 PM

i say some do some dont
but who cares what i say keep on ging with this debate
Well you care. What others care about is not a problem ;)

Durin's Bane

11-25-2005, 11:29 PM

Are we actually still barking over the old arguments?

Gothmog

11-25-2005, 11:45 PM

Are we actually still barking over the old arguments?
Woof Woof Woof

Or to put it another way:

Yes :D

Khôr’nagan

11-28-2005, 04:33 PM

Wow, I come back after a year and this thread is still going? Honestly, hasn't the point been exausted? Every concievable argument has be argued, including the truly brilliant one-winged argument (way to find the middle ground, Barliman). I mean, even this post about the point being exausted has already been posted (and maybe by me, I can't remember). I guess everyone needs to give their own two bits. In fact, it was so irresistable that I couldn't help but reiterate a few important points:

1) Balrogs have wings, whether made of shadow or not, with which they can fly

2) Everyone who disagrees is stupid :D

I mean, think about it: if you were a demon of some sort, wouldn't you want to have wings? I mean, how cool would it be to have wings? And, as stated in the Silmarilion, all the Valar and Maiar chose their own forms. So the question is, what would you choose?

Ingwë

11-28-2005, 05:03 PM

1) Balrogs have wings, whether made of shadow or not, with which they can flyAre you sure that they will fly if the wings are made of shadow?Of course they will not fly :)

I mean, think about it: if you were a demon of some sort, wouldn't you want to have wings? I mean, how cool would it be to have wings? And, as stated in the Silmarilion, all the Valar and Maiar chose their own forms. So the question is, what would you choose?Yes, I would want to have wings but if I was a Balrog I wouldn't have wings :D The Valar and the Maiar can choose their own form but the Balrogs are corrupted by Melkor. I don't think that he asked them 'Do you want to have wings'. He just create them and I think that they lost part of their power. If they didn't they would change their shape whenever they want; they wouldn't.

Ithrynluin

11-28-2005, 05:46 PM

I mean, think about it: if you were a demon of some sort, wouldn't you want to have wings? I mean, how cool would it be to have wings? And, as stated in the Silmarilion, all the Valar and Maiar chose their own forms. So the question is, what would you choose?

There may have been some restrictions as regards flight. Why else don't we see any winged Ainur, with the exception of Sauron who briefly took the shape of a bat? You may be interested in the following thread (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=18187).

Why all the trouble with locating Gondolin? Creatures as mighty as winged Balrogs could surely fly high up into the sky and espy the fair city from afar?

Very nice to see you again!

Gothmog

11-28-2005, 08:06 PM

I mean, think about it: if you were a demon of some sort, wouldn't you want to have wings? I mean, how cool would it be to have wings? And, as stated in the Silmarilion, all the Valar and Maiar chose their own forms. So the question is, what would you choose?
Personally I would not want such useless apendages. They would get in the way and make the Balrog look like a clown.

I am quite happy with my wingless and terrifying Balrogs with their shadow of unlight. ;)

Khôr’nagan

11-29-2005, 03:29 PM

Are you sure that they will fly if the wings are made of shadow?Of course they will not fly :)

Yes, I would want to have wings but if I was a Balrog I wouldn't have wings :D The Valar and the Maiar can choose their own form but the Balrogs are corrupted by Melkor. I don't think that he asked them 'Do you want to have wings'. He just create them and I think that they lost part of their power. If they didn't they would change their shape whenever they want; they wouldn't.

Well, since the Balrogs are made of shadow and fire, it only makes sense that if their wings, too, were made of shadow and fire, they would be able to fly with them. I mean, the only reason they wouldn't would be if the air simply passed through their wings, but if they passed through the wings, that would mean that things could pass through the Balrog's body, too, and that is certainly not true.

Furthermore, Melkor corrupted them, yes, but he didn't create them, and they had the ability to choose their own forms independent of him. As to limitations in their ablitity to choose forms, it is well-known that Tolkien changed a lot of things from his earlier works to his later works, including Balrogs. For one thing, several of the Balrogs who attacked Gondolin were slain by Elves, unless I recall incorrectly, in one on one combat, not to mention the fact that their were so many of them. The Balrogs are later revised to number less than ten, I believe, and those more powerful than anything previously described. It is concieveable to believe that Tolkien, when revising the Balrogs, changed more than their physical abilities, but their appearance as well. And, since the Fellowship of the Ring constitutes the final piece in which Balrogs were described and that in the book the Balrog is said to have wings, I believe suffiecient evidence exists to say that Tolkien very likely added the wings in after all the stuff he wrote about the histories.

And all this is based upon the assumption that the Balrogs cannot change their forms like other Maiar and Valar, and also the possibility that the several Balrogs, having been individual beings from the start, may not have chosen identical appearances, but rather merely similar ones, and some of them choosing wings while others might not. The Balrog described in LotR very well may have been the only one with wings, and they chose not to use it to find Gondolin because the Elves would know they were threatened if they chanced to look up and see this huge, burning monster flying in the sky. If it could see them, they could see it, after all.

Gothmog

11-29-2005, 05:35 PM

A nice theory. However, it is based on one very inconclusive (delibiratly so in my opinon) passage. ;)

I still believe that whatever image Tolkien had for His Balrog, he did everything he could to prevent us from knowing what it was. ;)

Ingwë

11-29-2005, 05:38 PM

Well, since the Balrogs are made of shadow and fire, it only makes sense that if their wings, too, were made of shadow and fire, they would be able to fly with them. I mean, the only reason they wouldn't would be if the air simply passed through their wings, but if they passed through the wings, that would mean that things could pass through the Balrog's body, too, and that is certainly not true.If we can trust The Encyclopedia of Arda:Balrogs were spirits of fire - their hearts were of fire, we are told, and they carried whips of flame. They could, however, shroud themselves in darkness and shadow. The Balrog that Gandalf (http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/g/gandalf.html) fought in Moria (http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/m/moria.html), for example, at first gave no hint of his fiery nature apart from the flames that issued from his nostrils. In appearance, the Balrogs were man-like, but fire streamed from them, and they were swathed in dark shadows. Here is the link: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.asp?url=http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/alphae.html
The Shadows are not solid. They don't have three dimentions. They are something that exist is the plane. That is in the real world, our world. What about the world of J. R. R. Tolkien? I don't think that it is much more different.

From The Encyclopedia of Arda:
A Quick Digression: What is ‘Shadow’?Where Balrogs are concerned, their 'shadow' isn't just a lack of light, but a region of darkness that they carry around with them. Exactly what its qualities are is a debatable point, but it can certainly flow into different shapes. These shadow-shapes, in fact, form the beginning of the whole debate.I don't think that the shadows of the Balrogs are something more than darkness around them. Ungoliant....
A cloak of darkness she wove about them when Melkor and Ungoliant set forth; an Unlight, in which things seemed to be no more, and which eyes could not pierce, for it was void. (Silmarilion)It is a cloak of Darkness, it is not Shadow, just a void. Ok. But it hides her. I think that the Darkness that the Balrogs carry around them is just... a Darkness, it is not a form of life, it is not a part of their body like our skin. It seems that they have similar functions (skin and shadow) but we mustn't forget that the Balrogs are Maiar => they're spirits. I think I must read the Sil again...
So I think that the Shadow around them just surrounds their body, the fire. Probably Tolkien added it to make these creatures look more evil :)

To Gothmog: you're evil. I had been writting this post for 20 minutes when you logged in and posted reply :D

Gothmog

11-29-2005, 05:53 PM

To Gothmog: you're evil. You noticed :D ;)

Well you put more work into your post ;) I agree with you about the Shadow surrounding the Balrog. While Ungoliant's Darkness completely blocked sight, I think that the Balrog's cloak of darkness is of the same type but of lesser degree,

Khôr’nagan

11-30-2005, 04:33 PM

The Fact remains, though, that whether made of shadow or simply covered in shadow, the Balrogs are vulnerable to man-made (or I should say, Elf-made) weapons, if the Histories are to be believed. And if swords can cut them, it's not likely that air can simply pass through them, and if air can't pass through them, then their wings, if made of whatever the Balrog is made of, are capable of providing flight.

Of course, that doesn't take into account the changes Tolkien made to the Balrogs, and perhaps he made them invulnerable to the weapons of Men and Elves, but it is not likely that since every other Maia or Vala in a physical form (that is, a form that can interact with the world around them) is vulnerable to such weapons, Balrogs, who are hardly the most powerful, would be invulnerable and still be able to affect the world around them. If you say they are simply shadow and fire and cannot be harmed thus, then how are they supposed to do harm to others? And if you say they can wield fire and shadow as weapons but that weapons can't harm them, then that would be saying that Balrogs possessed abilities that not even Melkor, a Vala and one of the most powerful, possessed.

And though I don't think Tolkien went out of his way to keep us from knowing the truth of Balrogs, I must agree that he certainly did not go out of his way to let us know more about them, either, leaving them rather ambiguous and thus more frightening. Because, really, an ambiguous unknown that is potentially deadly is much more frightening than a known and understood danger, and I believe one of the main points of Balrogs was to frighten. THis point was probably raised before (if it was, I don't remember), but that's what I think Tolkien was thinking about when he concieved of the Balrogs. He may have even refrained from actually giving them a defined form in his own mind so as to portray them with more ease as ambiguous and frightening.

Barliman Butterbur

11-30-2005, 06:42 PM

Well, it appears as though the Balrog/wings argument is here to stay, as it has always been. Therefore I will periodically — as I do right now — offer my most elegant compromise as to whether or not a Balrog (1) has wings or (2) has no wings. I say it has ONE wing, right down the middle of it's back! They can't fly anyway, so what's the dif? :cool::p

Barley :eek:

Helcaraxë

12-03-2005, 02:52 AM

Let me shift the paradigm: the main question thus far is: what defines "wings?" The answer: Balrogs are mostly fire with some sort of dark shadowy substance. So to debate whether the wings are only a large extent of their non-winged shadowy bodies or whether they are actually wings is meaningless, since the two are the same.

Interestingly, Gandalf later describes how the Balrog became a creature of "slime;" so, apparently, there was some solid material under all the father and shadow. But this doesn't undermine my above point.

since every other Maia or Vala in a physical form (that is, a form that can interact with the world around them) is vulnerable to such weapons

No, remember that Gandalf says he could not be harmed by mortal weapons when he came back as the White.

Khôr’nagan

12-03-2005, 06:51 AM

Yes, Helcaraxe, a good example of how Tolkien changed things when writing LotR. If you recall, Melkor fought one on one with Fingolfin, and though he was victorious, he recieved a limp for his troubles. Melkor, being a Vala, would not have been susceptable to such an attack and not have those weaker than him susceptable as well. Thus Olórin, a maia, would not possess greater strengths than Melkor, and so in order to work, Tolkien would have had to change things. Of course, that is to say that the other Vala didn't take some part in strengthening Olórin; perhaps they could have combined all their abilities to make Olórin immune to such base weapons. Of course, this is all conjectures and what if's. The fact is, though, Olórin still had a physical form that could be attacked, if not by ordinary weapons.

The point of my stating that Balrogs are vulnerable is to emphasize that in order to be able to harm others, I believe that they themselves would have to be vulnerable to attack, i.e. have a physical form that can be cut and thus having a physical form that can utilize physical wings. Immune or not, Balrogs are not simply beings through which a sword would swing as if through smoke, but rather, if they're immune, beings upon which a sword can strike and not cause harm. Again, of course, this is just my opinion, and I admit that I hold it largely because I like the idea of it better than the idea of it being otherwise. Still, I believe there is evidence, as I have stated, to support my opinions, and I stand by them.

Gothmog

12-03-2005, 01:03 PM

I agree with Khôr’nagan. The Balrogs Tolkien's later writings were small in number (three or at most seven according to JRRT) and very powerful but vulnerable to weapons. However, in the later views of JRRT, while a Balrog was vulnerable it was only the greatest of the Elven Warriors that could exploit this and even then only (it would seem) at the cost of their own lives (Ecthelion v. Gothmog and Glorfindel in the mountains). Thus Gandalf told the fellowship that Durin's Bane was to great for them to fight. In the battle even Gandalf could only defeat Durin's Bane at the cost of his own life.

I belive that the reason some think of the Balrog with a body made of only Shadow and flame comes from a description given by Aragorn to Galadriel and Celeborn.
From The Mirror of Galadriel
Then Aragorn recounted all that had happened upon the pass of Caradhras, and in the days that followed; and he spoke of Balin and his book, and the fight in the Chamber of Mazarbul, and the fire, and the narrow bridge, and the coming of the Terror. 'An evil of the Ancient World it seemed, such as I have never seen before,' said Aragorn. `It was both a shadow and a flame, strong and terrible.'He was speaking of what impressions he had from seeing it.

Arvedui

12-03-2005, 05:33 PM

I don't find it reasonable to state that Balrogs aren't made from some solid form. Take for instance Melkor, who when having spent a lot of his power, were unable to change form again. And, as was mentioned above, was subject to being wounded. After the fight with Fingolfin, he hid in his mansion, and never fought again.
Now, the balrogs are minor to Melkor in might, and has probably never done anyting positive while they have existed. Why should they be made out of "coloured air?"

Concerning wings: the only passages where there is a diract reference to any wings, is from The Bridge of Khazad-dûm, where it is stated that the shadow about it reached out like two wings.
This refers to the previous description of the Balrog:What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater;
So when its wings were spread from wall, the "wings" in question are the shadow that is a part of its form, not wings per se.

Wolfshead

12-03-2005, 06:09 PM

I don't know what all the debate's about, to be honest. Surely Ralph Bakshi's cartoon provides all the evidence needed?

;)

Búrzghâsh

12-11-2005, 05:35 AM

pssshhh of course they don't! if they had wings the balrog would never have fallen when gandalf broke the bridge of Khazad-Dum

Thorondor_

12-11-2005, 11:25 AM

I don't find it reasonable to state that Balrogs aren't made from some solid form. Take for instance Melkor, who when having spent a lot of his power, were unable to change form again. And, as was mentioned above, was subject to being wounded. After the fight with Fingolfin, he hid in his mansion, and never fought again.
Now, the balrogs are minor to Melkor in might, and has probably never done anyting positive while they have existed. Why should they be made out of "coloured air?"
I agree; as Gandalf says of the balrog in The white rider, TTT:
Yet it has a bottom, beyond light and knowledge, said Gandalf. Thither I came at last, to the uttermost foundations of stone. He was with me still. His fire was quenched, but now he was a thing of slime, stronger than a strangling snake.

Khôr’nagan

12-12-2005, 02:26 PM

Yeah, I am actually just re-reading the Lord of the Rings, and I saw that the other day and was like, "Yeah, that would have been all I needed to prove they were solid, if I had remembered..." But anyway, that point standing, as I've stated before, had they any wings, they would likely as not be just as solid as them, and they would be able to fly with them. And since I believe that they definitely have wings, in my reasoning their is little doubt they have wings (or at least, less doubt than surety). But Balrogs dwell in the deep dark places of the world, in the deepest and darkest dungeons, and in such places flight is impractical, so they probably didn't have much strength in their wings, and could probably only fly short distances, if at all, without stretching them out and exercising them and what not, just as a man who doesn't use his legs for a long time wouldn't be able to walk until he exercised them and allowed them to return to their former strength. That's why the Balrog wouldn't have flown in Khazad-dum when it fell down the pit. I admit, however, that from the description of the Valaraukar (I use the Quenya name because it's just so badass) in the histories, it seems fairly clear that Tolkien did not imagine them with wings at that time, but rather, in my belief, changed his mind while writing the LotR and endowed them with wings. Because never previously is their any mention of anything about Balrogs, not even their shadows, being anything like wings before, and the mention of them in Khazad-dum to me says that Tolkien changed his mind.

Numenor

12-21-2005, 02:36 AM

"And it's wings were spread from wall to wall"

It doesn't get any clearer than that

Gothmog

12-21-2005, 02:58 AM

"And it's wings were spread from wall to wall"

It doesn't get any clearer than that
As clear as the shadow which spread like wings. ;)

Walter

12-21-2005, 11:25 AM

DGoeij

12-21-2005, 06:05 PM

Just as a sidenote: The members of the fellowship must have grown wings too, while they passed through moria. Or why else could Gandalf possibly cry out 'Fly, you fools! ' before he fell into the abyss...

That's just his frame of reference. By ordering them to fly, Gandalf could convince himself he wasn't dropping. Instead, the others were merely rapidly accelerating upwards, flying.

Gothmog

12-21-2005, 06:58 PM

Walter

12-22-2005, 02:05 AM

That's just his frame of reference. By ordering them to fly, Gandalf could convince himself he wasn't dropping. Instead, the others were merely rapidly accelerating upwards, flying.
Oh... I see... That would explain why he himself didn't fly (other than vertically towards the bottom, that is...) ;)

But at least the Balrog was fair enough as not to use his own wings and just fly away... :D

----

So that is why he didn't go SPLAT when he reached the bottom.

He didn't???? :D

DGoeij

12-22-2005, 04:50 PM

But at least the Balrog was fair enough as not to use his own wings and just fly away... :D

A Balrog with wings? Who gave you that crazy idea? :rolleyes:

At least we know for certain the Balrog went SPLAT when the fellowship flew out of sight. I mean, Gandalf mentioned struggling through a thick layer of slime.

My apologies for going off topic. I blame Walter.:p

Barliman Butterbur

12-22-2005, 06:07 PM

I don't know what all the debate's about, to be honest. Surely Ralph Bakshi's cartoon provides all the evidence needed?

;)

To say nothing of PJ's... But I still say that Balrogs have ONE wing growing out of their spine, which ripples like the sides of a manta ray...

Barley

Alcuin

12-22-2005, 09:03 PM

I don't know what all the debate's about, to be honest. Surely Ralph Bakshi's cartoon provides all the evidence needed?
Little known correction to the text as first printed:

The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its big fuzzy slippers were spread from wall to wall...

Ermundo

01-14-2006, 04:10 PM

I always imagined Balrogs with wings personally. But I know that when Ungoliath had Morgoth entangled in her webs, Morgoth summoned the Balrogs to come to his aid. They traveled at speeds equal to fire from Angband but I don't think that it says anything about a Balrog flying.

Wonko The Sane

01-23-2006, 03:11 PM

As long as we're not really discussing the topic can I just say that I'm pretty sure that we'll all keep our own ideas on this one?

But at least we can settle on one thing: Balrogs were definitely pink! ;)

Fugitive1992

01-26-2006, 01:54 AM

PINK! says who. they said it's 'the dark shadow fo the flames'
not pink.

Wonko The Sane

01-26-2006, 07:55 PM

PINK! says who. they said it's 'the dark shadow fo the flames'
not pink.

Ah yes, I can see why you think that. That quote is often misprinted. It should read: 'The dark shadow of the pink flames.'

:p

(Of course I am just kidding! I was trying to be funny! I don't really think balrogs are pink!)

Khôr’nagan

02-07-2006, 05:03 PM

Of course I am just kidding! I was trying to be funny! I don't really think balrogs are pink!

You don't!? Then you mean to say, all this time I've been the only one?

As long as we're not really discussing the topic can I just say that I'm pretty sure that we'll all keep our own ideas on this one?

Well, that's true for the most part, but I for one have a modified opinion from that which I originally possessed: That Balrogs in the pre-LotR writings didn't have wings, but that Tolkien toyed with the possibility that they did when writing LotR and left it wague intentionally to leave his options open. My previous belief was that they had wings, period.

Admittedly, though, I'll never say they didn't have wings, so there are always limits.

Withywindle

02-07-2006, 08:03 PM

Wolfshead

02-07-2006, 08:06 PM

Withywindle

02-07-2006, 08:13 PM

Point taken, although a Balrog would look pretty silly if it had little flappy wings like an ostrich

Khôr’nagan

02-09-2006, 02:49 PM

As has been stated before, some creatures who can fly need a running start; it's hard to get a running start when a bridge falls out from beneath you, or when some annoying pest is swinging a sword and shooting lightening in your face. And that's assuming it was running from Gandalf once it got to Zirak Zigil; Who's to say it didn't run there simply for the choice of battleground, like an army that runs to god terrain then turns and fights their pursuers. And as to how it died by falling from the peak, it was stricken dead then fell off the peak and smote the mountain side in its ruin. Last time I checked, when you throw a dead bird off a mountain, it doesn't start to fly as it falls.

And I've already stated that I believe the Balrogs in older writings did not have wings, but even if I did, falling off a cliff with a High Elf swinging a sword in your face is not conducive to a good, easy flight. And who's to say it could fly with an Elvish warrior clinging to it? A Balrog is a creature of shadow and flame; how much does that weigh? How much does any Maia weigh? According to Gwaihir, when he picked up Gandalf after the battle of Zirak Zigil when Gandalf had been returned as a full Maia (as opposed to a Maia sewn into a human body), Gandalf was as light as a feather, and was no burden to lift. Maybe the wings on the Balrog were designed to support their own small weight, and a 200 pound Elvish warrior is just too much to support. And according to most pro-wingers, the historical texts do mention Balrogs flying; just not as clearly as they could.

And another idea. At some point, Morgoth did learn the secret of flight, and bestowed it upon the Flying Dragons, which were first seen in the battle against the Valar at the end of the First Age. Who's to say that, learning of the secret, he did not teach the Balrogs how to fly as well? Of course, once an Ainu is accustomed to one form, it is difficult, if not impossible, to change it, and it very well may have taken the Balrogs years before they could adapt their bodies accordingly, which would explain away why they weren't said to be flying in the afformentioned battle; but when you've got, oh, 6,500 years to sit alone in a dark cave in the deepest reaches of the earth, you have an awfully long bit of spare time on your hands, wouldn't you say?

The tiresome thing about this debate is that, regardless of any point you make, there's always a counterpoint....

Withywindle

02-09-2006, 05:41 PM

It is indeed impossible to resolve the argument. I suggest two compromises:

1) That Balrogs were not all identical. Whilst being of a kind "shadow and flame and whips" etc. there may have been some variation - some with horns, some with tails and some with wings. As to whether Durin´s Bane was one of the ones with wings .....(!?)

2) Despite the weight of evidence against Balrogs having wings, I together with the pro-wingers accept that Balrogs look better with wings. It one of the few instances where the "artistic license" practised by Tolkien artists has improved on whatever Tolkien´s original idea was. If anyone remembers Citadel Miniatures´ vignette of The Bridge of Khazad Dum (I had it in the late 80´s don´t know if it´s still around) theirs was the definitive Balrog, complete with wings. So the Balrog has aquired wings ad hoc whether Tolkien meant it to or no.

Noldor_returned

02-10-2006, 10:15 AM

I thought we went through this ages ago. The earlier Balrogs didn't, and the more recent ones did. Done. Solved. Stop arguing.

Majimaune

02-10-2006, 10:54 AM

Emus can't fly either you know!
But it it's a long thread and something should be dicided in the end (which will probebly be the end of the website) so lets just do what Barly said: They have one wing in the middle of the back so that they can't fly.
Now heres an addition of my own (well not exactly mine it's Wonko the Sane's)... THEY ARE PINK!!!!!!!!!!!
It suits everyone and is better cause if they can't fly then they may as well have one wing and if they had two then the people who where saying they had WINGS (theres and S there) and the people who where saying they dont have WINGS (theres also a S there) have a compromise.

There have fun trying to understand what I just said with all that if you didn't understand it I'm not going to explain.

Khôr’nagan

02-10-2006, 04:04 PM

This debate END!? The world as we know it will sooner self-destruct.

As exciting Barliman's ability to reach the middle-ground is in this issue, it doesn't help anyone, since only you crazies will believe such a ridiculous idea (said with affection, mind you :D ).

Noldor Returned has had some experience debating this issue, clearly (it's like the madness that comes upon men who can Channel in the Wheel of Time; you never know how long it will take, but if you keep debating this issue, you eventually snap :rolleyes: ).

I too agree, Windywindle, that Balrogs look better with wings; without them, they're like oversized trolls or something, which isn't nearly as cool. And I support the idea that Balrogs were different (why would different entities all look the same? That's just lame). However, you have to admit that no amount of evidence, save unless Tolkien himself speaks from beyond the grave to either confirm or deny our arguments, that can confirm or deny any of our theories; as it happens, I like my new theory very much, and find it very attractive.

Noldor_returned

02-11-2006, 11:29 AM

You don't get it do you. I'm almost asleep!
(If anyone can link this to this petty argument, you deserve something)

Wonko The Sane

02-11-2006, 01:48 PM

If a Balrog has wings, how the hell did it

a) fall into the abyss
b) Not fly off the peak of Zirak Zigil in order to escape Gandalf as plainly it was trying to do
c) Die by being cast off the peak and bouncing off the mountain side on the way down
d) Fall to its death off a precipice in Gondolin together with Glorfindel
e) Not get mentioned at any time in the Silmarillion or elsewhere being aloft

So all creatures with wings can fly then? Wow. I'll go run and tell the chickens and the ostriches.

Furthermore, even if they could fly it doesn't mean that they'd want to do it all the time. Second of all, they're very large and perhaps flying took too much energy out of them and in the situations you mentioned they were too tired to fly.

And the Sil only mentions hobbits (Periannath, Halflings) in the account of the rings of power and there it doesn't describe them at all. Are we therefore to assume that all that we read about Hobbits in LotR isn't true because the Sil doesn't back it up?

Point taken, although a Balrog would look pretty silly if it had little flappy wings like an ostrich

Have you ever seen an ostrich? They have HUGE wings, they can't fly because their bodies are too big and their bones aren't hollow. Same with chickens. Their wings are large for their body size. It's not like they're walking around with tiny little fly wings attached to their bird bodies or something. :rolleyes:

I thought we went through this ages ago. The earlier Balrogs didn't, and the more recent ones did. Done. Solved. Stop arguing.

Oh, right. Like you have the final word and we'll just stop because you say so. :rolleyes:

And it does stand to reason that all balrogs were different. It's clear that dragons were different. They are the same kind of creatures with similar attributes, but they're not all identical. And there are different species of dragons as well. Why not of balrogs? Which, of course, does not rule out my theory of a pink balrog. I mean, The Sil doesn't ever mention it, but I think we've proven The Sil doesn't have the final word on everything.

As for the wings debate, it's clear they did have wings. I mean, I just re-watched that section of FotR and that balrog DEFINITELY had wings. I saw them. AND he used them. So yous all are wrong. :p

Eledhwen

02-11-2006, 03:21 PM

This particular Balrog seems to have spent not a few aeons underground. Even if his wings were supposed to be useful, how useful would they be with so little exercise? Let's see - he plunges into an abyss when the bridge gives way, plunges into deep water where he gets thoroughly slimed, then ends up at the top of a long stair from where Gandalf smites his ruin. Not a lot of opportunity to stretch his wings, methinks, even if they are more than some shadowy stuff that wouldn't lift a dragonfly.

Withywindle

02-11-2006, 08:15 PM

I´ve thought of a 3rd compromise:

The Balrog, as it appeared to Frodo, was wreathed in shadow, right? To the extent that its form was indistinct. Now Frodo (he wrote down the account in Red Book of Westmarch after all) saw what he thought might be wings, but might have been an illusion of the shadows, so really both possibilites exist simultaneously.

Therefore, The Balrog is like a giant Schroedinger´s Cat: whilst inside the shadow the possibility of having wings and not having wings are both equally true, only when it emerged from the shadow would we know, but as Frodo never sees that, the Balrog for us, is both winged and wingless.

Starbrow

03-06-2006, 05:02 AM

What a great solution, Withywindle.

BOTH SIDES ARE RIGHT. :D Schroedinger's Cat can be used to solve every debate. :rolleyes:

Durin's Bane

03-24-2006, 12:01 PM

Let's see - he plunges into an abyss when the bridge gives way, plunges into deep water where he gets thoroughly slimed, then ends up at the top of a long stair from where Gandalf smites his ruin.
Which makes another point- why didn't he fly up but fell down in the abyss?And when he was loosing it to Gandalf on the peak why didn't he fly away to safety?
Meaning- he didn't have wings to do it!

Ithrynluin

03-24-2006, 02:46 PM

Which makes another point- why didn't he fly up but fell down in the abyss?And when he was loosing it to Gandalf on the peak why didn't he fly away to safety?
Meaning- he didn't have wings to do it!

Or was simply too exhausted to use them. Did you know it's quite difficult for larger birds to leave ground? It takes a considerable amount of effort.

Durin's Bane

03-24-2006, 03:25 PM

Or was simply too exhausted to use them.
On the peak, ok, he was. But falling in the abyss? I don't see what could have exhausted him... Walking?

Ithrynluin

03-24-2006, 05:27 PM

On the peak, ok, he was. But falling in the abyss? I don't see what could have exhausted him... Walking?

How about the intense and energy-draining battle with Glorfindel?

Durin's Bane

03-31-2006, 09:44 PM

How about the intense and energy-draining battle with Glorfindel?

???:confused: ???

Ithrynluin

04-02-2006, 01:49 PM

Oh, sorry, I didn't get at once which balrog you were referring to. The balrog falling into the Moria pit? Why, didn't he cast a powerful spell earlier that almost destroyed Gandalf? And he confronted Gandalf on the bridge? I reckon those things were all potential flying inhibitors.

Alcuin

04-02-2006, 02:17 PM

...The Balrog is like a giant Schroedinger´s Cat: whilst inside the shadow the possibility of having wings and not having wings are both equally true, only when it emerged from the shadow would we know, but as Frodo never sees that, the Balrog for us, is both winged and wingless.Schroedinger´s Balrog. The world of modern physics trembles!

Amarie Veanne

06-18-2007, 10:07 PM

My opinion is taht some of them had, and some didin't have wings. the moria Balrog had wings. :) I voted yes... ;)

Eledhwen

06-19-2007, 05:56 PM

I reckon those things were all potential flying inhibitors.I hate to be pedantic (and if you believe that, you'll believe anything); but we're not discussing whether balrogs could fly, only whether they have "wings or no?"

Leveller

12-03-2007, 02:21 PM

Eledhwen

12-03-2007, 04:14 PM

It's obvious that they couldn't fly or Morgoth would've found Gondolin in a minute and they wouldn't all have died from beeing thrown off of mountains. So because they couldn't fly I like to think of them as not having wings. Except for the "shadowy" kind ;)If Balrogs could fly, Gandalf would not have thought it worthwhile to send the Company over the Bridge of Khazad-Dûm. The bridge was the only way across, which meant there was no enemy there who could fly. The Balrog chanced the bridge, which Gandalf held; and even when Gandalf proved himself equal to the challenge, the Balrog did not fly.

The Balrog was somehow wreathed in shadow "It came to the edge of the fire and the light faded as if a cloud had bent over it." This shadow is next mentioned when the Balrog reaches the bridge: "The Balrog reached the bridge.... and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings."

These quotes convey a picture of an overhanging shadow about the Balrog. The Balrog itself is not portrayed as bent over the fire, but the shadow about it still caused the fire's light to fade. The image of the shadow reaching out 'like two vast wings' again gives the impression of a darkness emanating from the fiery being.

This same debate goes on about angels. It is argued that the light emanating from angels appears like wings, so people mistakenly believe that angels have wings. I hypothesise that Balrogs are a type of anti-angel; and have a shadow (absence of light) performing the same illusion.

Majimaune

12-04-2007, 08:22 AM

Wow this thread is going again.

Eledhwen, I think you have valid points. Especially about the angel/anti-angel thing.

Firawyn

12-04-2007, 08:40 PM

I hate to be pedantic (and if you believe that, you'll believe anything); but we're not discussing whether balrogs could fly, only whether they have "wings or no?"

God I can't believe this thread is still going!

Anyway - good point here Eledhwen. Penguins have wings, as well as chickens, and neither can fly. The question here is do they have wings.

I just re-watched all of my EE of LotR movies. Peter Jackson and the Weta guys did give the Belrog of Moria wings, I'm pretty darn certain of that.

However, that does not mean that Tolkien intended on that. Alot of what we, a mere half a century later, percieve about his works has been proven (mostly by us TTFers! :p) to be incorrect. It's kind of like that game you play at youth groups - where you sit in a circle, and the first person says one thing, and whispers to the next, and by the time the whispered sentence gets back to the first person, the sentence has changed dramaticly...most of the time very comic in it's context.

Eledhwen

12-04-2007, 08:55 PM

A lot of what we, a mere half a century later, perceive about his works has been proven (mostly by us TTFers! :p) to be incorrect. It's kind of like that game you play at youth groups - where you sit in a circle, and the first person says one thing, and whispers to the next, and by the time the whispered sentence gets back to the first person, the sentence has changed dramaticly...most of the time very comic in it's context.We call that Chinese whispers. Also, if a lie is repeated often enough, it will be believed. The 'lies' (variations from Tolkien's words and concepts) in the film versions can corrupt knowledge. Because most of it is accurate, the lies are insidious; and you (I) need to re-read the books to sort out the celluloid from the paper. Much of the imagery I had in my mind from reading the books has been replaced by the film images; and there's no undoing that; but at least I can replace PJ's balrog's wings with a shadow like two vast wings.

Firawyn

12-04-2007, 09:04 PM

*sigh* 'Tis on the list. I'm re-reading Unfinished Tales at the Moment, then onward to Book of Lost Tales 1 & 2, then round back to Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit, then the Sil...then...humm...havn't thought that far ahead. :eek:

I'm always reading something or other Tolkien...not like I'm going to have it all memorized anytime soon!

Gothmog

12-04-2007, 10:15 PM

Well I for one am very happy to see this thread revived with such an interesting view on the question. :)

This same debate goes on about angels. It is argued that the light emanating from angels appears like wings, so people mistakenly believe that angels have wings. I hypothesise that Balrogs are a type of anti-angel; and have a shadow (absence of light) performing the same illusion.
Considering that Tolkien was a devout Catholic, I think that this is a very important point. I believe that in Christianity demons would be 'fallen angels and could well be seen as "anti-angels". We cannot be sure if JRRT was aware of this debate about 'Angel Wings' but it is certainly possible that this played a part in why he changed the description of the Balrog of Moria to include this shadow.

In an earlier exchange of views with another member I commented that JRRT deliberatly chose to not describe the balrog clearly to allow the reader to put their own demon into the shadow. Perhaps this was incorrect, maybe he described it exactly in that way to include this illusion.

Eledhwen

12-05-2007, 03:57 PM

I'm always reading something or other Tolkien...not like I'm going to have it all memorized anytime soon!My oldest daughter had to learn the first paragraph of The Hobbit off by heart, for an English Literature lesson at school. She can do it as a party piece now.

And thanks, Gothmog. There's always something new to learn about Tolkien's work, and the angel thing only occurred to me when I read Leveller's post. I'm dreaming that someone will open a dusty old trunk in an Oxford University attic, and find a whole new treasure trove of notes answering a load of those unclosed questions.:rolleyes:

Firawyn

12-05-2007, 10:13 PM

We cannot be sure if JRRT was aware of this debate about 'Angel Wings' but it is certainly possible that this played a part in why he changed the description of the Balrog of Moria to include this shadow.

Oh I wouldn't put it past him Gothmog...that sounds like a topic the Inklings would have discussed.

My oldest daughter had to learn the first paragraph of The Hobbit off by heart, for an English Literature lesson at school. She can do it as a party piece now.

Haha! That's awesome. I'll have to go read that now. Seriously though, I have more chance of memorizing the CONarnia, by CS Lewis, that any of Tolkien's works. I've read them so many times that I can refer to a scene by book, chapter title, and chapter number!

Gothmog

12-05-2007, 10:40 PM

Oh I wouldn't put it past him Gothmog...that sounds like a topic the Inklings would have discussed.

I totaly agree. :)

Firawyn

12-06-2007, 09:31 PM

I totaly agree. :)

*tips hat*

Let's see: What other Angles/Belrogs things might compare?

(AH! Spell check does NOT recognize Belrogs!)

Eledhwen

12-12-2007, 10:33 AM

Hey, Galin; I got an excellent post from you on this thread via email, but here it isn't! Maybe you have taken it away for editing?

Galin

12-12-2007, 03:31 PM

Well, I decided I should look at the whole thread before posting, but anyway, now that you mentioned it, here's another similar version.

The Balrog was somehow wreathed in shadow (...) These quotes convey a picture of an overhanging shadow about the Balrog. The Balrog itself is not portrayed as bent over the fire, but the shadow about it still caused the fire's light to fade. The image of the shadow reaching out 'like two vast wings' again gives the impression of a darkness emanating from the fiery being.

The Shadow yes... I agree!

In the initial description (in draft) the Balrog in Moria is clearly seen -- the furnace-fire of its yellow eyes are described, its arms were very long, and it had a red tongue (Christopher Tolkien indicates some doubt as to the word 'tongue' here) -- and it has no shadow or 'wings' at this point, just like the old Balrogs. Tolkien then notes to himself:

'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.' JRRT The Bridge

What would obscure the creature? wings? How did Tolkien alter his former conception of Balrogs? Well, a shadow would do the trick here in my opinion, and in subsequent drafts indeed a 'darkness' enters. And we know from The Later Quenta Silmarillion -- thus a description of the 'new' Balrogs -- that they were cloaked in darkness:

'... their hearts were of fire, but they were cloaked in darkness, and terror went before them; they had whips of flame. Balrogs they were named...' JRRT, Later Quenta Silmarillion

But not just a regular darkness caused by lack of light, or a cast shadow caused by a blocking of light, but a shadow that existed about the creature, making it harder to see (not 'plainly discerned') and more fearful. We are dealing here with a mythic creature that is beyond 'science' of course, and Tolkien has written about unsual darkness in other places, what some have called Unlight...

'The Light failed; and that was woe enough, but the Darkness that followed was more than loss of light. In that hour was made the Dark which seems not lack but a thing with being of its own: for it was indeed made by malice out of Light, and it had the power to pierce the eye, and to enter heart and mind, and strangle the very will.' JRRT Morgoth's Ring

The description of the Moria Balrog.

'... it was like a great shadow, in the midst of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater; and a power and a terror seemed to be in it and to go before it.' JRRT The Fellowship of the Ring

I think Tolkien's conception at this time was that Balrogs were cloaked in darkness, which need not be a cast shadow but something Balrogs have: a 'shadow' somehow more than lack of light, similar enough perhaps to the Cloud of Ungoliant -- something obscuring the powerful demon within!

With the Balrog in Moria one does get a winged demon in a sense -- but not boring old 'regular' wings like a giant bat, rather a far more interesting idea in my opinion, that is, momentary wings of darkness -- the Demon's 'Shadow-cloak' at one point reaching out like vast wings.

My opinion anyway :)

Eledhwen

12-12-2007, 07:42 PM

And we know from The Later Quenta Silmarillion -- thus a description of the 'new' Balrogs -- that they were cloaked in darkness ... But not just a regular darkness caused by lack of light, or a cast shadow caused by a blocking of light, but a shadow that existed about the creature, making it harder to see (not 'plainly discerned') and more fearful. Like Ungoliant: "There [in her ravine] she sucked up all light that she could find, and spun it forth again in dark nets of strangling gloom,"

And to aid Melkor in his quest: "A cloak of darkness she wove about them when Melkor and Ungoliant set forth: an Unlight, in which things seemed to be no more, and which eyes could not pierce, for it was void."

Although the 'Unlight' is a darkness without solid form, it must seem to have form because light cannot penetrate it, and so it lacks any translucency such as would be found with, say, wispy black smoke; and it also lacks any reflective properties, devouring light rather than reflecting it off any surface or edge it might have.

We have established that wings do not need to be functional. Do they then have to be both visible and tactual? As we are dealing with mythical creatures, let's consider one that has no substance (a spirit). In its mythological setting, we do not deny its existence because we can see and interact with it; and if it had wings, we would testify to that fact, though they may not exist in a form that can be sensed by ordinary mortals in any way other than by sight.

Vision is the sensing of light as it is reflected back into the eyes; and so it seems to me that the Balrog's 'wings' may be the only thing not visible (having no light in them at all), but not visible in such an absolute way that they are clearly defined by the visual senses because of the visibility of all that surrounds them that is not engulfed by them.

So, if the balrog has a nothingness - an Unlight - in the shape of wings, that is clearly visible because of the absence of the visibility of anything it engulfs; do those wings exist to the extent that they can be called 'wings'?

My head hurts!

Starbrow

12-13-2007, 04:32 AM

Hey Galin,
I'm having the same trouble as Eledwhen with your posts not showing up in the thread. I only saw your latest post when I went to reply.

So, if the balrog has a nothingness - an Unlight - in the shape of wings, that is clearly visible because of the absence of the visibility of anything it engulfs; do those wings exist to the extent that they can be called 'wings'?

My head hurts!

So does mine!

Galin

12-13-2007, 04:44 AM

Leaves

Galadriel's lament: yéni únótime ve rámar aldaron!
long years numberless as the wings of trees!

Cloud

The Notion Club Papers: 'A great cloud coming up slowly out of the west was eating up the stars. As it approached it opened two vast sable wings spreading north and south.'

Sails

Tal Elmar: '...in greater numbers they come then: two ships or more together stuffed with men and not goods and ever one of the accursed ships hath black wings.'

Darkness

The Return of the King:'Over the land there lies a long shadow, westward reaching wings of darkness.'

Whatever the properties or nature of the shadow about the Balrog, it need only reach out like wings (or look like wings), to be referred to with the word wings.

Thráin II

01-28-2008, 11:21 AM

Well, I've read through all 46 pages of this thread, and I've also read pretty much all the Balrog wing discussion articles out there.

I would put forth the theory that Tolkien did not believe, at the time of writing the LOTR, that this, let us face it, rather minor aspect would be cause for such intense debate. With this in mind, I don't think he gave the whole problem so much thought as some might imply, finally deciding to leave it ambiguous on purpose.

As to the issue at hand, I am of the opinion that Balrogs do not have wings. Most if not all of my arguments have already been stated (and re-stated, argued for and against endlessly) in this very thread.

I believe there should be no doubt (lest you want to force the hand of interpretation so that the texts say otherwise) that Balrogs cannot fly. A plethora of quotes in this respect have been provided (such as Durin's Bane leaping from here to there, as well as the Balrog that Glorfindel battled and his movements). Indeed as has already been stated, Balrogs never seemed to fly even in situations where it would have been clearly advantageous to do so. We can dismiss phrases such as "passed with winged speed over", seeing as Tolkien uses such phrases, as well as the word "fly" in many contexts not linked to actual flight.

So, if Balrogs cannot fly, why would they have wings? We can dismiss any arguments based on physical evolution making wings useless because, after all, they were Maia and chose their forms which then remained the same. I don't think atrophy can come into play either, because after sleeping for some 6,000 years I think it's safe to say you couldn't stretch your wings in one go.

I'd argue that Balrogs did not suffer from atrophy, ever.

I do not think that they chose to have flightless wings for the purpose of intimidation when they had much more powerful tools to that effect. Their unlight and the terror that they spread about them, coupled with the fact that they were larger than a man's stature and just happened to be engulfed in flames should suffice to scare off anyone who would be likely to get scared, and I'm sure that while fighting Gandalf, popping out a pair of wings wouldn't have made Gandalf say "Ok, now I'm screwed, must run!".

So, seeing as there wouldn't be any purpose in having flightless wings, and since I believe it to be quite obvious that Balrogs couldn't fly, I believe they simply did not posses wings.

Another issue that should be addressed is the description of Durin's Bane in "The bridge of Khazad-Dûm". We are provided an ample description of the Balrog, yet no wings are mentioned. Tolkien never seemed to have any trouble describing anything, and he never left important details out. In my own mind there is no doubt that if the Balrog had corporeal wings, this would have been mentioned in the initial description, ie here:

What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape, maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it.Additionally, it should be said that it was not common fact that Balrogs had wings (especially as this is the first time Balrogs are mentioned in the Lord of the Rings), so one cannot s