Wings & Ears: Why Bother?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

In the Elves’ Ears thread, radagastly asked:

So, what's the point behind these polls? I've read enough of your posts to know that you wouldn't bother with such questions unless you had something in mind. So, what is it?

Well, at the time I set up the Ears poll and re-ignited the debate over balrog wings I was just playing around with the poll function. But in reading over the responses in those threads I’ve begun to see that perhaps there is more going on here than I at first supposed, and that there are issues being raised in each thread that bear closer scrutiny.

Imagine, if you will, that a letter from Professor Tolkien to his editor is suddenly uncovered in an attic somewhere. Imagine that in this letter, the Professor offers a more full description of the fight with the balrog, and that this description is the precise opposite of how you are sure it is supposed to be. For example, in my case the rewritten version of the coming of the balrog would be something like:

It rose up before them, a vast shape, wingless and unable to do anything but run at them with a speed that might metaphorically be described as flight. Legolas, his golden yellow hair streaming about his pointy-ears, cried out, ‘Ai ai! A balrog has come!’

Were such a letter to emerge, I am afraid that it would do little to change my opinions on any of these matters: for me, a winged balrog would still rush at a dark haired, round eared Legolas. This would not be just stubbornness on my part, for such a letter – while clearly expressing the opinion of the author – would not do anything to change the text of The Lord of the Rings, based upon and according to which I have formulated (quite justifiably, I think) a particular view of this incident.

So this brings me to my question. A number of people in both threads have already stated that they don’t think it really matters whether balrogs have wings or what the shape of Elves’ ears may be. They point out, quite rightly, that the written texts – whether on purpose or not – leave such issues debatable, and thus we can, as readers, make up our own minds to a certain extent (I’m just not convinced by the arguments for balrog capes, or ears the shape of oak leaves ). At the same time, a number of people have said that if they could find a letter or something like the one I imagine above, then the issue for them would be ‘settled’ – but why, for heavens’ sake? If, on the one hand, such questions don’t matter because the text is ambiguous or unclear (the reader can make up his or her mind), then why would the opinion of the author, expressed somewhere other than in the text, which he left ambiguous or unclear, be the only one worth anything (the reader is not allowed to make up his or her mind)?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

At the same time, a number of people have said that if they could find a letter or something like the one I imagine above, then the issue for them would be ‘settled’ – but why, for heavens’ sake? If, on the one hand, such questions don’t matter because the text is ambiguous or unclear (the reader can make up his or her mind), then why would the opinion of the author, expressed somewhere other than in the text, which he left ambiguous or unclear, be the only one worth anything (the reader is not allowed to make up his or her mind)?

Another thing to point out is that this "letter", should such an unlikely thing ever be discovered, would date from a specific point in Tolkien's life, in this case the early/mid 50s, when the book was being published. Supposing that it DID say that Balrogs have no wings. All it would take would be ANOTHER letter or bit of writing, perhaps something from the early 60s, when Tolkien was struggling with the background of the orks, to get the whole debate going again. For example, if he said something like:

"The original orks must have been Ainur in origin, perhaps lesser Balrogs, later interbred with Men to produce the orks of the First and later Ages." And then Tolkien has a thought occur to him, and being Tolkien, he inscribes it on paper: "but what about wings?"

Conversely, what if conclusive proof was offered from the era of the Book of Lost Tales stating that the Balrogs did NOT have wings? Would anyone take it as proof?

No, because of course he changed his mind by the time he wrote the Lord of the Rings, etc, etc.

The only way this debate could ever have been settled is if Tolkien had lived long enough to authorize and edit a 3rd Edition of the book, in which little passages were inserted to clarify whether or not Balrogs had wings, whether Elves had pointy ears, and what colour Legolas' hair was, etc...

[mark12_30]

We also learned that balrog wings attracted more voters than elf-ears.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

With all due respect, Formendacil (and by the way, welcome to the Downs from a fellow-Canuck) you've not really answered the question -- or at least, not fully.

The scenarios you imagine are intriguing and would seem to indicate that you believe that the only "right" way to imagine a balrog, etc, is Tolkien's way. (Which is an interesting assertion to make even as you acknowlege that he was always changing his mind on things like this!)

But why should this be? Why would his imagination be the only valid one (assuming he could ever provide such an "answer") when Middle-earth is in at least some respect the product of his imagination and yours? His imagination because he says "a balrog" and your imagination because you either put wings on that balrog or not depending on what you want/believe.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

With all due respect, Formendacil (and by the way, welcome to the Downs from a fellow-Canuck) you've not really answered the question -- or at least, not fully.

Thanks for the welcome. Yes, I didn't quite answer the question. My intent was more to add to what you said, and increase the intensity of the "Why bother?" question than to answer it for myself. I'll try to rectify that now, though.

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

The scenarios you imagine are intriguing and would seem to indicate that you believe that the only "right" way to imagine a balrog, etc, is Tolkien's way. (Which is an interesting assertion to make even as you acknowlege that he was always changing his mind on things like this!)

But why should this be? Why would his imagination be the only valid one (assuming he could ever provide such an "answer") when Middle-earth is in at least some respect the product of his imagination and yours? His imagination because he says "a balrog" and your imagination because you either put wings on that balrog or not depending on what you want/believe.

Why should Tolkien's imagination be the only valid one on the topic of middle-earth (at least in my own mind)?

Because Tolkien created middle-earth. It was his vision, his imagination, the story that HE wrote that captured my imagination in the first place. My rabid fan-ness comes from HIS imagination. The facts I have memorised come from HIS legendarium. The Elvish language I strive so hard to pronounce properly follows the rules that HE devised. Therefore, it logically follows that I should wish to know HIS opinion on the topic.

After all, if I am going to be a rabid fan, and spend hours poring over the obscure reign of Tar-Ancalimon and other strange, totally-alien-to-a-non-fan items, and do my best to memorise what he said, then surely I will try and capture what he intended in every and all matters.

For example, prior to reading the pronunciation guide in the Silmarillion, I pronounced many names wrong. A case in point: Celeborn. Sellaborn? No, it should be pronounced Ke-le-born. Right? Of course. No one debates that it should be pronounced that way, because the good professor obviously intended it.

The snag that we run into with the Balrogs is that we don't know WHAT the good professor intended. I believe, and most of the non-wingers with me, believe that Tolkien never intended them to have wings. Unlike the pronunciation of Celeborn, we do not have a text that says in very clear words that "Balrogs do not have wings", although in our opinion, at least, the implication of this is painfully obvious.

I hope that explains my position on the subject at least a little bit better.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

"Sneaky" Fordim ! I think we are revisiting the "Canonicity Thread", only coming in through the back door.....

Sneaking, sneaking! Child's always so polite, yes. O nice Child! Fordim brings her up interesting threads that nobody else could find. Tired he is, thirsty he is, yes thirsty; and he guides her and he searches for topics, and she says sneak, sneak. Very nice friend, O yes my precious, very nice.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Child

"Sneaky" Fordim ! I think we are revisiting the "Canonicity Thread", only coming in through the back door.....

Hush! 'Tis the thread that must not be named.

Although, those were my very thoughts on reading the opening post. And like a moth to a candle once again ...

So I feel that I must repeat a refrain that may be rather familar to veterans of the C-thread. In my mind, there is a distinction to be made between facts and interpretations (although I accept that there are "grey areas" in between). My own approach is that, while I am all for the freedom of the reader when considering matters of interpretation, I am content to bow to authorial intent when it comes to matters of fact, and for much the same reason as that given by Formendacil:

Tolkien created middle-earth. It was his vision, his imagination

And, when we consider matters such as Balrog's wings, Elvish ears and Legolas' hair, we are clearly discussing facts. Thus, if presented with evidence of authorial intent on any such issues, I will gladly amend my own conception to incorporate it.

This has, in fact, happened throughout my Tolkien-reading life. When I first read LotR, The Silmarillion had not yet been published (let alone Unfinished Tales, HoME, the Letters etc). It was published a few years later, but my youthful attempts to penetrate it foundered on stony ground and I did not in fact read it until two years ago. Moreover, my original copy of LotR did not have the Appendices (save for the tale of Aragron and Arwen).

So, for much of my Tolkien-reading life, I have not been in possession of many of the facts that go to make up the Legendarium. I had no idea that Sam joined Frodo in the Undying Lands or that Legolas and Gimli also sailed West. Gandalf was clearly a powerful being, but I had no conception of Maiar or Istari. References to the Lords of the West and the names of individual Vala (Elbereth, for example) meant little to me. And I had little idea of the existence of Iluvatar, save to the extent that there are hints of a greater guiding force in certain passages of the book.

In recent years, my eyes have been opened to the wider vistas of Tolkien's Legendarium - including matters of which I was previously unaware that have a bearing on the story told in LotR. And I have accepted these into my conception of the story, and the wider world of Middle-earth.

Now, I accept that matters addressed in the Letters, which Tolkien never intended to be published, might require different treatment. But I am nevertheless content to allow facts presented in Tolkien's unpublished writings (ie those not published during his lifetime) to supersede my previous imaginings, unless incompatible with any part of the published works.

So, if it was established to my satisfaction that Tolkien intended Balrogs to have wings and Elves to have rounded ears, then I would accept that, however much it might go against my original thoughts on these issues.

Finally, one caveat: Where Tolkien's own conception of the facts clearly changed over time and there are conflicting ideas presented (such as with his ideas on the origins of Orcs), then I am content to go with that with which I feel most comfortable (although, in such cases, I am open to persuasion through discussion).

[Lalwendë]

To me, it would matter greatly, because it would be the 'word' of the author. Imagine if a text was found, which was absolutely proved to be the very word of Jesus (if there is such a thing as 100% proof outside the world of weird and slightly scary alcoholic drinks), would Christians reject it saying that they preferred to make up their own interpretations, thanks very much? They would certainly debate it, but they would not necessarily reject it. Likewise, I would not reject a new text by Tolkien, but assimilate it into my view, and it would quite possibly change my view of something if I could see that this text proved that Tolkien intended something else to that which was originally published. Again, if it could be proved that he intended something else and the recent discussions over the new edition of LotR show that this is not always provable!

Hmmm, this brings to mind the various arguments which have raged over the 'meaning' of the works of Plath. To some, to many, for years she was writing as a feminist poet who raged against the actions of her errant husband and her whole output was judged against these standards. But with more biographical information it gradually became clear that she loved her husband intensely, and her poetry was carefully controlled and measured. Now, with these new critical opinions based on biographical information, again it became hard to discern whether this information (e.g. the journals, only relatively recently published) was in fact 'correct', or was it carefully released by the Hughes estate to improve their own image after the vituperative criticism first seen?

This example shows how, if indeed something was 'found' on whether Balrogs had wings and Elves had pointy ears it might easily be questioned anyway. We'd ask "Ah, but did Tolkien intend that?", "When, exactly, did he write this and why did he not include it?" and maybe even (possibly, I admit, just in my dreams ) "Is this only being released to stop Barrow-Downers tearing each others' throats out?"

[drigel]

Something so close to the heart as the works are with me causes such intense feelings. I personally love to hear other views on this but in any case it is testimony to a body of work that has literally taken a life of its own.

I love it Fordim - forget Gothmog - did you check out that balrog with the oakleaf shaped ears? Aaaii Aaaii!

[Child of the 7th Age]

"Sneaky" Fordim ! I think we are revisiting the "Canonicity Thread", only coming in through the back door.....

We can look at this question on two levels. First, Fomendacil made a good point. If Tolkien had ever finished his "final" revisions on the Legendarium, we would at least have a common text to start from. But he did not so we are often left pointing to one interpretation cited in BoLT2 and another conflicting view that appears in Morgoth's Ring. Tolkien evolved over time, and part of our problem is that we are free to pick and chose what particular ideas we will stress in our own mind.

But beyond that is the wider question: how much are we bound by Tolkien's vision (as the author) and how free are we to exercise our own imagination (as the reader). The last time we discussed this, I was driven to literary sites to read essays about the "death of the author"! That is a terrible admission for an historian to make.

I still feel that Tolkien should define the parameters of our discussion. If a new Letter or unpublished essay was discovered, written near the end of Tolkien's life, I would theoretically feel that I should follow along and accept the guidelines the author had written down.

And yet, part of me isn't so sure about that. Let's imagine we're not talking about Elf Ears or Balrog Wings, which frankly have limited meaning for me. Let's take something that touches at the heart of my understanding of the story. What if Tolkien wrote an unpublished epilogue to LotR in which he discusses what happens to Frodo after his arrival in the West? And let's imagine that Tolkien had decided that Frodo would never recover from his wounds, or reach an understanding of his place in the scheme of things. Instead, I am given the poem "Seabell", and told that this was Frodo's final fate: to feel alienated from those about him, to feel unending desire for the Ring, to never go beyond the point he was when he left the Shire.

What a bummer! Whatever I might say about the author logically having the right to guide our judgments, I would not accept that because it goes to the heart of my understanding of the story. I am willing to stand on the shores and not know what happened to Frodo. I am also willing to make up alternate positive scenarios within my head. But I would not be willing to accept a Frodo mired in unremitting despair, even if Tolkien said it was so.

I guess I feel I have invested too much of myself in this tale. There's a piece of me in Middle-earth, and I can't ignore that fact. Such areas of possible disagreement are few and far between: in most situations, I read the text and try to follow closely. But I will admit there is a point where my own imagination would take over and the professor's opinion would be second. I wonder if there is anyone else who feels this way....

[mark12_30]

You know, Child, I'd shrug (after a bit of sobbing) and say, "If Frodo is not healed in 'purgatory' (cough) then he'll be healed in paradise... beyond the circles of the world."

The doctrinal consistency is a big part of what I love in Tolkien. He's easy to trust.

[Encaitare]

But I will admit there is a point where my own imagination would take over and the professor's opinion would be second. I wonder if there is anyone else who feels this way....

I don't really feel this way about anything M-e related, but (also going along with one of Child's examples) it is my belief that if you don't like the ending to a story, there is nobody to say that you cannot make up your own. To continue this idea, I conclude that none of this "really" matters. I don't think that Balrogs were "supposed to" (i.e.: according to what Tolkien wrote) have wings, yet all the images I see of them are wingéd. So sometimes in my mind they have wings, and sometimes they don't. Usually I'm not thinking about Balrogs, so this is an internal debate which I fortunately must face only rarely.

[Linnahiril Tinnufinwen]

I would have to agree with Lalwende that a "letter" from Tolkien ought not to be dismissed outright. But I do believe also that one's own imagination is very important. I am (or have at least attempted to be) a writer myself. I have my own views of the characters and worlds that I create, but I would in no way wish to impede the imaginations of my readers. If it suited someone to read my story, and imagine that the main character looked completely different than what was described (even if the description was in incredible detail), then I wouldn't mind in the least. As long as it contributed to the enjoyment of the book, why should that be a problem? As it is, Tolkien tends to leave many things to the imagination. His descriptions of appearances and such can be vauge, unless he deemed it important. Of course, I didn't know him personally, but I really don't think he is the kind of author that would be bothered by the fact that his readers have their own interpretations of his books. I believe that anyone can feel free to imagine anything they wanted: Legolas with red hair, balrogs with seven arms, etc. The LOTRs would still be just as enjoyable to them as to the next person.

[mark12_30]

Fordim! Fordim Hedgethistle!

Triflest thou with thy boardmates?!? Villain, o, most pernicious villain-- meet it is that I set it down, that one may poll, and poll, and be a villain! Pah! Thou art a scoundrel of the lowest rank and file, breathing the reek of the deepest foundries of Moria. I, Roggie, whether I am winged or not, do scoff at thee and smite thee with this, my stolen Gnome-Gauntlet. Neither thy dark hair nor thine rounded ears shall avail thee, for lo, the souls of our slain debates do hover over us, and either thou or I shall accompany them hence. Quail, quail, I say, for the chasm opens before us both! Do thy worst! Have at thee, thou inveterate paper-shuffler!

[radagastly]

Told you so! I knew it!

In any case, I'm afraid I'm a bit like Gildor on this question, and must say both no and yes.

While the existence of such a letter would certainly make good fodder for these debates, (fodder I would not be above using if it suited me) I suspect that while reading through the story the momentum of the journey through Moria, or the description of Legolas or the other elves would carry me into my own, accustomed view of things, regardless of what Tolkien has said subsequently. It is the way of good fiction that a well chosen description taps into the readers imagination to fill in the blanks. Bilbo's brass buttons imply a level of wealth that most of his fellow hobbits do not enjoy. Gollum's teeth are sharp because he files them, but are they sharp like incisors, or needle-like canines? I may have forgotten a detail, but I don't believe Tolkien specifies (thank goodness.) I can barely tolerate a basic cleaning at the dentist, much less file my own teeth sharp with a stone.

So, while I might enjoy arguing against balrog-wings and for pointy ears, the balrog I see when I accompany the Fellowship through Moria will have very frightening wings, and Legolas' ears will be as round on top as mine are. That's just the way I've always seen it.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

To me, it would matter greatly, because it would be the 'word' of the author. Imagine if a text was found, which was absolutely proved to be the very word of Jesus (if there is such a thing as 100% proof outside the world of weird and slightly scary alcoholic drinks), would Christians reject it saying that they preferred to make up their own interpretations, thanks very much? They would certainly debate it, but they would not necessarily reject it.

Ah but what about the Babel fish argument? God would disappear in a fit of Logic...