Obviously what is needed is a full linguistic compilation of all of Tolkien's uses of the word "fly". We need to see his pattern of collocation, the cognates he uses, his contexts, etc etc.

For now, here's this from CoH, a somewhat new source from which to extract more chapter and verse:

My bolding and, to be pedantically precise, I've picked this up quoted by a review, not from the book.

:D

Turin preferred to keep both feet on the ground.

It's good that he didn't live to see Earendil take to the sky . . .

Lol. Yes I entirely understand that Tolkien does do that more than once. I'm glad that people disagree with me as to the proof of this statement.

I would also like to clarify something I said a few post ago.

I still think that they do not have wings. I have not abandoned the hosts of non wingers, but I am trying to abandon this thread... But I will wait till people are tired of abusing my silly comment on flying/fleeing :o

--Fin--

Not actually that bovvered..
 

Boromir, while I agree that the books forum is not at its most vibrant currently, and while some topics are more interesting to those for whom they are a brave new world while the longer dead smile and say " 'tis new to thee". I don't think this topic has that much mileage to get so worked up about.

I always had the impression that the Balrog had wings but I also had the impression that elves didn't have pointy ears and that the hobbits foot hair was on the soles... the films made me reread more carefully and corrected me of those latter two misapprehensions. This thread made me reread from my initial vote of "yes" and while the "like two vast wings" made me reconsider, I still think the jury is out. The text is ambiguous in my opinion, and I think there is reasonable doubt as to the whether Durin's bane had wings.

In the quote, yes the shadow stretches out "like two vast wings". That is clearly a simile and not debatable in itself. However the presence of shadow wings and actual wings are not mutually exclusive... and if we are going to be so literal, I might point out that a shadow is created by a physical object preventing light from falling in a place ..... what might cast a shadow like big wings ... well wings perhaps ;) .

Taken in isolation, the second quote seems to refer to actual wings. It is only by reference to the other that one might think that these are metaphorical not literal wings. So for me even on the text alone there is scope for doubt. However, Balrogs are spirits of fire. The description is rather like that of Gandalf in " a long expected party" when he threatens to uncloak:"He seemed to grow tall and menacing; his shadow filled the little room" , and also of Galadriel when she is offered the ring. There are many instances of powerful beings - especially those whose fea is dominant over their hroa - Istari, ancient and reborn eldar, - seeming other than they are when they are roused. A balrog must have some physical form but I don't see why it should be fixed. Certainly if they are winged, I would think they are good for gliding more than gaining height - they seem to fall too much for that. They may be like dragons - some winged some not... but for me the bottom line is that it IS ambiguous and I don't actually care that much - I am still traumatised by the hobbits hairy ankles and bearded baby dwarves but I don't lose sleep over this one. There are so many wore interesting things to talk about and I shall perhaps find a few to start threads on :D but this is like flogging Snowmane after his encounter with the fell beast ...

I've always known that winged balrogs are no good and recent experiences have enstrengthened the belief... :p

Forgive me if this has already been presented, but I recently found this little bit of information in the RotK appendix A.
"Thus they roused from sleep a thing of terror that, flying from Thangorodrim, had lain hidden at the foundations of the earth since the coming of the Host of the West: a Balrog of Morgoth."
Whether this is like Gandalf's use of the word meaning to flee or retreat, or if it truly does mean to fly, I do not know.

The Balrog and Wings.

Ok, I know that every possible quote has been offered and no doubt 'done to death' in this thread. I have debated in more than one of these :).

I give now only my views on the matter. When I first read the LotR and stood with the Fellowship at the chasm of Khazad-dûm, the impression that I got of the Balrog was of a large, Man-shaped, demonic being without wings. Nothing in the writing showed me a creature with 'Wings'.

When I first saw a debate on wings for a Balrog I could not understand why anybody thought the Balrog had any. So I did some thinking, perhaps I was wrong and re-read the books (again). I still see a very large creature (perhaps as much as 14ft tall) surrounded by a 'cloak-like' shadow that it could extend at will, similar to the darkness that surrounded Ungoliant though not as thick. Further reading and thought found no definite case of a Balrog travelling in the manner of birds in flight. They seemed at all times to be 'Ground Troops'.

So I asked myself "Why would any creature that could choose its own form saddle itself with ungainly great appendages that have no real purpose?"

This is what I came up with.

The Only creditable reasons given for wings are
a) To increase its apparent size to intimidate.
b) To Fly or Glide.

a) This is a pointless reason as the Balrog is intimidating enough due to the fear that goes before it and the fact that to increase its apparent size to look more terrible it has the Shadow which it can spread.

b) There is at no point in the writings any evidence that the Balrog could fly or even Glide. Indeed the best time for either of these actions would have been during the battle above Gondolin where there was no restriction due to space and every reason to use wings due to the height at which this battle took place. Yet even before the fight between Glorfindel and the Balrog took place we find this :-

The Book of Lost Tales: The Fall of Gondolin.

Rather than flying or gliding to get past Glorfindel's men it did so by "Leaping" A creature capable of gliding would no doubt have "Leaped Up" from where it was but then would have glided from there to the front of the line.

In the absence of any definite evidence in favour of flight, to me Occam's razor amputates the wings. :)

Tolkien also tells us that before the appearance of the Winged Dragons in the War of Wrath, Morgoth had never before essayed to bring war to the upper airs. This is related to the observation that at Gondolin the Balrogs needed the dragon-tanks to surmount the city walls- hardly necessary for flying creatures!

Tolkien uses 'fly' so often and so regularly in its sense of 'flee, run away,' dozens and dozens of times, that no significance at all can be attached to its use in connection to Balrogs.

Besides, the leading cause of death among Balrogs (100% of known cases) is plummeting.

If nothing else, is it not true that Gandalf the Grey's final words should lay this debate to rest?: "It flies, you fools!"

jk

Although, to be fair, Gothmog's plummet was very short (and wet), and no doubt having the spike of Ecthelion's helm stuck in his guts probably did not help ;)

Didn't he say, Fly you fools!not it flys

anyway, Balrogs have shadows that look like wings I am pretty sure!

Maybe they were vestigial...wings made of shadow couldn't have been too useful, while they certainly would been imposing/ridiculously trendy.

Really now, are we doomed to this forever?
 

Ugh!:mad: The person who started this thread said that this would potentially settle the matter, and yet here we all are, still bickering over the same usages of words and phrases, getting nowhere with the topic. My hopes for this matter to ever be laid to rest are dead (unlike the topic) and I hope that all of you will realize that we may never know.:(

Of course we will know.

Some (like me) will know that Balrogs do Not have Wings!

Some will know that Balrogs Do have Wings!

In this, each reader puts their own Demon into the shadowy area marked out by Tolkien.

Finally! Someone finally gets it!

The thread had been inactive since April of '07.

Yes indeed, but it always pops back up. Not all threads do that.

The point is that the nerd whining about the issue never being put to rest is the one who resurrected it after 7 months of inactivity to post a quotation that first entered this particular discussion back on page 2.

Why are there threads all over the Down's dedicated to the subject of Balrog's wings? :confused: Isn't it common sense that Balrogs of wings?

No, it is common sense that Balrogs do not have wings.

However, Common sense is an oxymoron.

Sense in not at all common. ;)

First off: You say nerd like it's a bad thing.
Second: I wasn't whining (per se), and the only reason I did was because I had yet to realize that entering anything in hopes to end it would be a futile effort.

Couldn't resist replying on this thread...

As some others already stated: no where in any writings of Tolkien is there any description of Balrogs with wings... I guess this misconception comes from in the mention of wings in Moria. But those of you who believe they are actual wings as opposed to a wing-shaped shadow must have poor English reading skills indeed or you haven't read the books at all.

Don't remember the exact words in the bridge of khazad dum passage now but wasn't is something like "it's wings spread from wall to wall..."?

Now correct my if I'm wrong, but wasn't this episode in one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) halls of Moria. If they were actual physical wings this would imply the Balrog was immensly tall. This huge size would also imply that:

The balrogs sword and whip would have been redundant as it would have been able to crush Gandalf like a bug.

The wings would also have been made redundant as it would have been able to step over the gorge as if it were a pothole.

Now as you all know the balrog walked (!) out on the bridge (which was just wide enough to pass one man at a time) where Gandalf fought it and cast it down in the abyss by raising the bridge.

All this would have been impossible if the Balrog was gigantic, let alone had wings.

Now there's absolutely nothing in this passage that implies that the Balrog had wings. Sure you could argue that it had wing but was flightless you could also argue that it had a leather jacket. If I said Balrogs wore leather jackets you would call me crazy though.

It's been so long I forgot my own position back at the time... :rolleyes: lucky it gives one their own choice in italics, so I must have been of the no-winger party if this software is to be trusted...

But, skip spence, surely you don't imply that whatever walked out at Gandalf and Co was nothing more than an undersized excuse for a balrog that only grew in the telling over the ages the tale has been told? :eek: Why should we diminish its stature in order to get rid of its wings (if any)?

I don't think there's any written evidence that balrogs were--or Durin's Bane was particularly--gigantic. Greater than a man in size, for sure, and capable of flaring their silhouette to demoralizing effect, but not so large as to be unable (obviously) to make their way through the less spectacular doorways and hallways of Moria. Greater than Sauron in physical form? It seems unlikely. After a certain point, size becomes impractical for an intelligent creature, especially if we assume that, as Maiar, balrogs were probably accustomed to more comfortable dwellings than holes in mountains such as dragons made use of (note: Moria was not just a hole in a mountain).

Hole in a Mountain? Why, yes, the whole maze of...
 

Hello, old man :J

I didn't say Balrogs were 'gigantic', did I? Was just interested in train of thought behind the conclusion

In fact, it must have been of moderate size (scene of Ganlalf holding the door being an evidence), just it seemed somewhat strange to mee that people would need to rely on abstract reasoning and law of physics and the such when textual evidence is there to make use of, few pages back from the bridge scene :)

Italics mine

Indeed, something capabale of 'laying hold of the iron ring' designed by dwarves and for dwarves' use, could not have been more than a few times larger than a dwarf, let alone problem of squeezing into the hall in the first place. Note also that the door is shattered not by a physical force that would have been a natural choice for a creature that large rather than 'words of command' and 'counter spells' (to be quite truthul, the door is, in the end, shattered by physical force of the 'roof of the chamber' falling down, but I'm talking cause here)

Anyway, even if I seem to be repeating Skip's argument's to an extent (though with greater eloquence I dare to believe), it was his somewhat harsh ranking of all pro-wingers to a man under 'poor English skills' file that made me want to tease him a bit.

ehe. :D

That's a very creative interpretation of my post (the first on this forum I believe) and how you came to it I can't guess. Perhaps my writing isn't eloquent enough to comprehend?

The physical appearance of a Balrog is never directly described, nor is its size. Tolkien probably wanted to allow the reader to make a mental image of the creature far scarier than what he'd be able to conjure up. If you imagine the Balrog with wings there's nothing wrong with that. Nor is it right. ;)

I'm not trying to diminish it's size. Where have I said anything like that? And if you really can't follow my train of thought, you too must have rather poor English reading skills. Seriously.

Actually, it depends on the sex of the Balrog. As with fireflies, only males have wings. (See Letter #144, and "Morgoth's Ring" p. 70.)

Mind you, I'm not sure if this is strictly canonical. At the time Tolkien was playing with the idea that Morgoth had bred the Balrogs from a species of insect, a concept that he later abandoned.

Mea culpa, confiteor. Maybe I tend to see depths below surfaces where none have been intended. Still

Few posts up :D. Consider:

If my logic be correct, this statement in itself implies its reverse that would be, roughly, as follows: 'if they were not actual physical wings, this would imply the Balrog was diminutively short'

Of course, I may have been taking it a bit too far, but your own post did not contain an indicator as to what definition opposed to immensely tall would you have stopped at yourself, so the scale of immensely tall - diminutively short is open to be used according to my liking.

That may well be the case. Yet, within this sentence you claim that your position reflects the truth (or is closer to the truth) not because it is based on fact, but because your perception ability is of superior quality. Huh?

As I've mentioned earlier, I believe [mark the verb used] Balrogs were not winged. Still, your uncompromising (to say the least) manner, merciful Sir (M'am?) forces me to argue with you over an issue we, apparently, agree upon :rolleyes:

-----------------------------------------------

Nerwen, you must have the wrong letter there, at least all letter 144 says about Balrogs is as follows:

The Balrog is a survivor from the Silmarillion and the legends of the First Age. So is Shelob. The Balrogs, of whom the whips were the chief weapons, were primeval spirits of destroying fire, chief servants of the primeval Dark Power of the First Age. They were supposed to have been all destroyed in the overthrow of Thangorodrim, his fortress in the North. But it is here found (there is usually a hang-over especially of evil from one age to another) that one had escaped and taken refuge under the mountains of Hithaeglin (the Misty Mountains). It is observable that only the Elf knows what the thing is – and doubtless Gandalf.

As far as I'm concernend, letters don't contain any further mention of Balrogs but one as follows:

The Balrog never speaks or makes any vocal sound at all. Above all he does not laugh or sneer. .... Z may think that he knows more about Balrogs than I do

Letter 210

Can't remember male/female wings/fireflies concept either, would be glad to be directed :)

Sorry, I meant Letter #134.

The firefly reference is from the second section of "Annals of Aman" (Morgoth's Ring):

I'm afraid not :)

:)

Thanks

Still can't seem able to locate it, will require a little bit of time I guess :)

Hang on, maybe I'm thinking of Letter #143.

Once again your deduction astounds me. Let me see if I understand your point of view: You're saying that since my statement the Balrog wasn't immensly tall is possible to interpret as the Balrog was diminutively short you have the freedom to do so? And also that you are forced to argue with me as my position in this current debate is too uncompromising?

You are indeed free to come up with wild interpretations of what I'm writing to make a forced argument but this isn't very constructive, nor does it make you look very clever. Do you know the opposite of clever? Use the same logic as before and see what comes up.

Nerwen maybe wasn't evil in the beginning, but she obviously is now. You made it up, confess! I am not a HoME expert, but there are surely many around here, and I'd really wonder if such an argument as you quote existed, that it would not have been quoted here, even though if it were, surely there will be a debate whether it is or is not canonical.

^Yes, I suspect that HerenIstarion must have misinterpreted Nerwen's post slightly, despite all his eloquence and masterful command of the English language, .:rolleyes:

Letter #243 also contains information about Balrog reproduction. Apparently a Balrog is born every minute.

There's a sucker born every minute, PT Barnum once said. I wasn't aware he was talking about Balrogs.:p

Well, now you know better.:D

You suspect correctly, admit being caught there :D

The following isn't either:

Basically, to 'wildly interpret' you once again, what you say here boils down to 'all who don't agree with me on the issue are silly (to use the most mild expression). Even, as I've said earlier, I agree with you on the matter of absence of wings, I don't think your type of argument is valid enough to uphold it.

I may forward educated guess, and sometimes I admit fitting the description, but not this time I'm afraid (apart from Nerwen's prank. I guess my knowledge of HoME is getting a bit rusty with years :smokin:)

Nerwen, you're evil. You know, you had me finding my this far unread copy of Morgoth's Ring and skim through the Annals of Aman thinking "Nerwen just can't be serious about it"... :rolleyes: :D The good thing is that skimming the book made me sure I must continue my HoME reading project soon, not "when I have time".

But, if Balrogs were like fireflies, then we would have an interesting and valuable piece of information: Durin's Bane was a girl. ;)