Do Balrogs Have Wings?

[Finduilas]

[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--

[Lord Halsar]

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. "

[Finduilas]

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.

[Sardy]

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..."

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Finduilas

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?

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.

[Boromir88]

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.

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...~Mith

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.'

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:

"His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings."

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:

"it's wings were spread from wall to wall."

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):

"And out of the west there would come at times a great cloud in the evening, shaped as it were an eagle"

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':

"And some of the eagles bore lightning beneath their wings, and thunder echoed between sea and cloud."

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.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Anyway, there shouldn't be any doubt that Durin's Bane did not have literal wings.

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.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

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.'

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.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

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!

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

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. 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.

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 but this is like flogging Snowmane after his encounter with the fell beast ...