[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

I've done years of pondering on this.

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

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

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

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

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

Are you ready?

Here goes;

Balrogs have NO discernable features whatsoever.

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

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

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

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

The argument is irrelevent.

Thanks for coming out.