Do Balrogs Have Wings?

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Squatter

What I do have to relate is that tonight, in a fit of insanity, I decided to look at the earlier drafts of The Bridge of Khazad-dûm...

Welcome to the nuthouse, old boy. I'm sure we have a dank padded cell and a spare straitjacket which will accomodate you. It's funny, those passages in HoME VII -- you can sense the care with which CT dances around the wings issue without offering an opinion one way or the other.

Vis a vis the Pony's wings -- I give davem credit for not being that deliberately obtuse and for arguing, as Juvenal suggests, satirically; my reply was made in the same spirit.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I had much the same impression of HoME VII. It's obvious that CRT is aware of the argument, but he seems reluctant to commit himself. This is a wise policy, and one which I'd happily followed for fifteen years until last night. Of course, father and son may have had a secret pact never to tell anyone about the wings: a punishment for those telephone calls at three in the morning, perhaps.

Saucepan, you're absolutely right: I don't remember any direct statement from JRRT that Balrogs don't have wings. There's also no particular reason to assume that individuals don't differ, so even if we could prove that the Balrog of Moria was bereft of wings it still wouldn't close the issue. Therefore, wrong and illogical though I believe the artists to be, anyone is welcome to believe what they like on this subject. That is, of course, one of the ingredients of irresoluble debate.

[Mister Underhill]

Throwing in your lot with the no-wingers after such a cursory examination of the evidence, eh? In that case, we'll get you a room in the "special" wing (wing! -- oh, the irony!), extra medication, and a restricted diet to go with that straitjacket. Mind you don't mess up the newspaper if Sharkû will be reading it after you, and for your own good I advise you not to get into a comparison of Hobbit vs. LotR geography with davem. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

You know me, Underhill: post now, research later.

It will be good to have more time to draw pictures of Florence and listen to The Goldberg Variations. Perhaps, too, the audience will be captive enough to listen to my new theory: if one were to put all of Tolkien's writing from all sources into chronological order, take every twelfth word and write them as one continuous stream of letters, then take every twelfth letter of the sequence and translate the resultant words from their respective languages, it will give the sinister connection between the Cotton Library fire of 1731, this picture by Louis Wain, a freemason's headstone in Repton churchyard and the disappearance of the S.S. Waratah. The Medici popes and the Kennedy assassination might be involved too, but that depends on the size of the publisher's advance.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Squatter

I don't remember any direct statement from JRRT that Balrogs don't have wings.

I don't remeber any direct statement from JRRT that Hobbits don't have wings, either - & Gandalf did clearly tell them to 'Fly!' I think we have to ask what Hobbit wingspans might be...

[Morsul the Dark]

strangely we have an "elastic statement" I notice both sides use the same quote to support their ideas.

but here's what it all comes down to:

I don't remeber any direct statement from JRRT that Hobbits don't have wings, either - & Gandalf did clearly tell them to 'Fly!' I think we have to ask what Hobbit wingspans might be...

It would be...oh I'd say......three and a half feet tall so about 9 foot wing span?

Here's the thing if you were to think of a bird....the wingspan is usually(now I'm estimating) about three times longer than its height... so A Balrog at 15 feet tall..

That's why he called Aragorn "Wingfoot". Going REALLY FAST. I imagine Balrogs, having a great deal longer legs than humans (if they stood around fifteen feet tall, their legs would be roughly nine feet long), .

Keeper ofDolGuldur said this

One would assume the wingspan at about 45 feet

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/attachm...tachmentid=182

considering they fold away from the body kind of like a vulture they would go down to 20 feet across... and still leave room or whip snapping and sword wielding.

now The Guy who be Short brought up an interesting point

Now, Balrogs are creatures of fire and shadow. Leather wings would simply burn off. Ergo, Balrogs don't have wings. Well, not leathery ones.

as for the material one would assume they have glands which secreet flame resistent chemicals kind of like sweat.

[the guy who be short]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

as for the material one would assume they have glands which secreet flame resistent chemicals kind of like sweat.

Perhaps they wore Kevlar? That wasn't really meant to be taken seriously though - I'm quite sure the majority of those "Winger" oddballs believe the wings are made of shadow and fire like the rest of the 'Roggies, thus the inability to fly

The shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.

If the Balrog had wings, why that terminology? Why liken shadow to wings if the Balrog already had wings? Surely Tolkien could just say "The shadowy wings reached out" or something like that? Bottom line, why use a simile for something that exists already.