Which is why you're an anti-winger.

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

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

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

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

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

I'll leave you with this...Here is a wonderful description Tolkien gives us of clouds...and it is precisely the same style he uses with Durin's Bane in Moria:
Here Tolkien is describing clouds and he says the clouds were 'shaped as if it were an eagle'...there's the simile. Then he extends that simile to keep that imagery of clouds looking like eagles in the readers mind; with...and some of the eagles bore lightning beneath their wings.

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

Same things happens in Gandalf's confrontation with Durin's Bane:
Then one moment later:

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

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

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

Why might one ask Christopher Tolkien this question?

Haha! Maybe he asked his Dad once! :D

-- Folwren

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

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

I agree, to an extent. But I don't think that it is solely down to Tolkien artists and the film-makers. I believe that, for some people (and certainly for me), the same kind of thing occurs as a spontaneous reaction to the text, regardless of the proper, technical, logical interpretation of the words used.

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

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

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

This is because "Jackson's Balrog" is not Jackson's at all, it's John Howe's, which I guarantee you had seen before, whether you recall it or not.

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

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

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

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

--Finduilas--

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's right got to do with it?
 

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

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

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

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

(Still love it though.)

While anything that's presented as 'new' is simply ignored. :rolleyes:

A man's what though Boro :p

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

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

Not quite. My image is that which the passage conveyed to me, rather than that which a strict technical construction of the words used might convey.

No, it is a discussion on whether Balrogs have wings. However, unless someone is able to establish with any certainty whether Tolkien intended them to have wings (and I doubt that anyone ever will), I regard this as a subjective issue. I have therefore answered the question from a subjective perspective and attempted to explain the reason for my answer. As far as I am concerned, Balrogs do have (fully functioning) wings.

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

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

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

--Fin--

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

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

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

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

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

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

They could very well be symbolic wings...symbolic of what I really have no idea. I mean Tolkien referred to his maiar as angels, that doesn't mean the Maiar had wings. His Balrogs were 'demons' that doesn't mean they had horns and hooves...same for the werewolves who were 'demonic wolves.' :D

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

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

(From the Akallabeth):
There's the simile, a great cloud was shaped as if it was an eagle. Same structure as 'and it's shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.'
Than one moment later Tolkien directly refers to the 'clouds' as 'eagle':
Just as a moment later, Tolkien directly refers to 'the shadow of the Balrog' as wings...as he had already previously established the metaphor.

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

I disagree. I have seen the meaning of the words you quote interpreted both ways over and over again, often by those who I consider to be intelligent and whose opinions I respect. I have never seen an argument which establishes their meaning, one way or the other, with sufficient certainty to convince me that they are anything but ambiguous.

To be honest, I have never engaged in this debate on the basis of the interpretation of the various relevant passages (and there are others - the Balrogs flying to aid Melkor against Ungoliant, the fact that Balrogs often seem to meet their fate by falling to their deaths etc etc). The reason that I have never done so is that, having seen all the arguments, I have seen nothing to dissuade me from my pre-existing image of a Balrog. That and the fact that, as far as my approach to this topic is concerned, there is "nothing new under the sun". I have nothing to add to the various points that I have seen made one way or the other over a great many articles and threads. I would imagine that many "veterans" of the Balrog debate feel much the same way too (which is not to say that those to whom the issue is fresher should not engage heartily in debating it).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Finduilas--

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unless I am missing something...

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

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

--Fin--

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

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