the definative balrog answer :)

[cian]

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner None of the examples that were cut and pasted from Conrad Dunkerson’s essay the Truth about Balrogs Vol.6 are comparable to the way Tolkien used the phrase winged speed. That essay is a shinning example of the perils of language deconstruction, and the fact that one can kick up enough dust with their feet so that they can no longer see a hand in front of their face. Cian both you and Grendel should give the source when you cut and paste from someone else’s work too (if you did and I missed it, my apologies).

Actually, the quotes I posted were cut and pasted from a post by David Salo, who gathered up a few in one place in a newsgroup discussion -- in any case they are referenced as to their 'source'. My apologies to David if he ever looks in here, as he did the 'gathering' and typing.

I made no reference at all to Conrad's essay.

You posted that: 'Winged speed is an expression used most often for swift flight with wings.'

I posted examples where 'winged speed' is used with regard to things without wings.

¤

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Maybe Conrad took it from David then, (didn’t mean to imply you were stealing) I’m not sure which is earlier. Conrad’s essays can be found at http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/TAB6.html

In my opinion, Michael's work really shows the flaws in this presentation.

[Grendel]

Michael's essay is crap. He purposely stays clear of the actual text in the finished work in favor of the notes and scribblings of the brainstorming that Tolkien did. All one has to do is focus on the actual finished text. The wings in the Moria scene were described as LIKE wings, not wings. All he was saying is that the creature was surrounded with shadow and that when the creature "rose up to a great height" the shadow around him LOOKED like wings. How people get from that description that Balrogs have actual physical wings is beyond me, and certainly beyond anything that Tolkien ever wrote.

Do Balrogs have permanent wings of shadow? Perhaps. The description makes it a possibility but nothing close to a certainty.

Do Balrogs have actual physical wings? None are described. Ever. And if they existed, why would Tolkien spend time talking about wings of shadow and fail to mention the actual wings? If one believes that a Balrog has physical wings, then why shouldn't one also believe that they have webbed feet, tentacles, and insectoid pincers. I mean Tolkien never says that Balrogs DON'T have those things, right?

Like Cian, I am also interested in hearing why you favor the concept of a Balrog having physical wings, Dunedain. What is the evidence that leads you to believe that the creatures have something which is never mentioned? Ever.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Grendel
Michael's essay is crap. He purposely stays clear of the actual text in the finished work in favor of the notes and scribblings of the brainstorming that Tolkien did. All one has to do is focus on the actual finished text.

I disagree that it's crap. His essay gives a good insight in how Tolkien's balrogs evolved. Whether you disagree with his final conclusion or not; the essay gives you more information to decide for yourself if they have wings or not and if they do, what kind of wings they might have, than you'll find in the few ambigious sentences in LoTR.

[cian]

Subject 'Balrog Wings FAQ' from Michael Martinez (1999) -- question number 7 (from Tolkien Newsgroups)

Question 7) What were the wings made of?

Answer Michael Martinez: "We don't know. Quite probably "shadow-stuff", whatever it was which the Balrogs used to cloak themselves in darkness. They probably were not made of flesh and blood, or feathers, and need not have been membraneous (skin stretched across appendages)."

Not that I necessarily agree with Michael about X, but that might be interesting at least, to folks who might post his essay for discussion.


¤

[Grendel]

I disagree that it's crap. His essay gives a good insight in how Tolkien's balrogs evolved. Whether you disagree with his final conclusion or not; the essay gives you more information to decide for yourself if they have wings or not and if they do, what kind of wings they might have, than you'll find in the few ambigious sentences in LoTR.

No, the essay gives you only what he wants you to see. He is trying to sell the reader on the idea that a Balrog has wings. Everything in his essay points to that conclusion. He fails to mention the many places where Tolkien used phrases like "passed over" and "arose" to describe the movements of obviously land-bound people and creatures. And he similarly ignores any evidence that goes against the theory of Balrogs having wings. Most importantly, he ignores the actual text from the books. The fact that he comes to such a definite conclusion about the topic is all the evidence one needs to dismiss the idea that he wants you to decide for yourself. He clearly wants you to decide with him. The Encyclopedia of Arda information is MUCH more fair and balanced <mails a dollar to Fox News> and clearly shows both sides of the debate. And the Arda site links to other sites with more information about both positions. Clearly the more valuable and fair resource.

[Falagar]

Joins the debate...

Originally posted by Grendel
No, the essay gives you only what he wants you to see. He is trying to sell the reader on the idea that a Balrog has wings. Everything in his essay points to that conclusion. He fails to mention the many places where Tolkien used phrases like "passed over" and "arose" to describe the movements of obviously land-bound people and creatures. And he similarly ignores any evidence that goes against the theory of Balrogs having wings. Most importantly, he ignores the actual text from the books. The fact that he comes to such a definite conclusion about the topic is all the evidence one needs to dismiss the idea that he wants you to decide for yourself. He clearly wants you to decide with him. The Encyclopedia of Arda information is MUCH more fair and balanced <mails a dollar to Fox News> and clearly shows both sides of the debate. And the Arda site links to other sites with more information about both positions. Clearly the more valuable and fair resource.

Except from the words "passed over" and "arose", what mistakes do you see in the essay? I do not say that Martinez is right (I find some of the arguments convincing, but others are a bit shaky), but if you are going to say that he ignores evidence against the wing-theory, then please say what evidence/texts from the books he ignores.

I do not know if Balrogs have wings or not. Lately I have been leaning towards the wing-theory, but I have not seen any firm evidence for it so to me it's neither true or false.

I have read the essay on the encyclopedia, but have found it not to include all the arguments for wings (though it's a long time ago, may have made some changes to it since then).

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Grendel
Like Cian, I am also interested in hearing why you favor the concept of a Balrog having physical wings, Dunedain. What is the evidence that leads you to believe that the creatures have something which is never mentioned? Ever.

Apparently you didn't read my post that said I am in the middle on the issue...

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Falagar
I have read the essay on the encyclopedia, but have found it not to include all the arguments for wings (though it's a long time ago, may have made some changes to it since then).

Yup I agree. The Encyclopedia of Arda essay does lack evidence on the side of the wings and they do state that they think that Balrogs don't have wings, so what Grendel said about Michael's article can be reversed for the EoA article...

P.S. I love the Encyclopedia of Arda by the way

[azalea]

I'm not trying to change the course of the argument, but I just wanted to give my views on the matter, for fun.

I happen to envision the Balrog with wings, because when I read the passage, I "hear" that it has wings (whether they're wings of shadow or actual wings matters not in my vision, because either way they look the same). (Remember my little "essay" about the story being "in the eye of the beholder" in the movies forum -- don't worry, I won't repeat it here. ) In answer to the question "do they?" I answer is that it could be either. If you want your balrog to have wings, go ahead. If not, fine. I know the arguments stem from what the exact intention of the author was, and that's fine to debate about it for fun, but in the end, it is my belief, because of my view on the nature of literature as art, that both views are valid, since nothing definitive was ever said by the author. To me, that means that it wasn't important to the story whether he had wings or not, and that the passage is meant to draw a picture in the reader's mind. Tolkien's achievement is that he is able to draw that picture for each reader, and that each reader then comes up with a vivid picture in his mind, together with a host of emotions in response to the actions. What an enviable thing for a writer to achieve!

Not only that, but my imagination takes things even further. [i]I like to think that maybe there were some balrogs with wings, and some without, just like dragons. All of this makes it very convenient for me -- I have no angst over "do they or don't they."

-- Azalea the Ambiguous

[Grendel]

Apparently you didn't read my post that said I am in the middle on the issue.

"He never said they didn't have physical wings either."

"My biggest thing is, as I said above, why would Tolkien constantly speak of Balrogs on the level of winged like creatures. I think it's fair to say we can all agree there are a substantial amount of passages where Tolkien speaks of Balrogs and either refers to flight in some way or wings in some way, whether they are figurative or literal. The point is, the two seem to always accompany each other when Tolkien speaks of them. I mean if his descriptions always go back to that, and it doesn't just happen once or twice. There are many other forms of descriptions in writing he could have used outside of those, but yet everytime he goes back to them, makes you wonder why."

"I am really in the middle on it, but lean more towards that they did have wings..."


Oh yeah, you're right in the middle.

[Grendel]

Except from the words "passed over" and "arose", what mistakes do you see in the essay? I do not say that Martinez is right (I find some of the arguments convincing, but others are a bit shaky), but if you are going to say that he ignores evidence against the wing-theory, then please say what evidence/texts from the books he ignores.

He skims over the actual text in the finished work and then scrutinizes in great detail the notes and scribblings and first drafts. If one concentrates on the finished product, the answers become clear. He is selling one viewpoint from the start and it is painfully obvious. His article is neither objective nor fair. His presentation of the no-wings side starts with "Here is where many people make their first mistake."

Yup I agree. The Encyclopedia of Arda essay does lack evidence on the side of the wings and they do state that they think that Balrogs don't have wings, so what Grendel said about Michael's article can be reversed for the EoA article...

Wrong. The Encyclopedia of Arda provides clear and obvious links to articles on both sides of the debate. The essay you posted can hardly make any claims of fairness or objectivity at all.

[Falagar]

Originally posted by Grendel
He skims over the actual text in the finished work and then scrutinizes in great detail the notes and scribblings and first drafts. If one concentrates on the finished product, the answers become clear. He is selling one viewpoint from the start and it is painfully obvious. His article is neither objective nor fair. His presentation of the no-wings side starts with "Here is where many people make their first mistake."

You're right there, it isn't an objective essay. He has a theory which he is coninced is right, and tries to convince the reader that it is the truth. But are you critisising the way he has written it, or that the conclusions he make are wrong/he doesn't present all of the arguments against wing; or both? If you're going to say it's not true you have to proove that it's not true. It doesn't matter how he has written it, if it's actually true and you can't argue against it.

Wrong. The Encyclopedia of Arda provides clear and obvious links to articles on both sides of the debate. The essay you posted can hardly make any claims of fairness or objectivity at all.

He is not trying to be objective. As I said above, he has a theory which he's trying to convince you is right. If you can't argue against it then you can't say it's false.

The encyclopedia's article presents lots of pro-and anti arguments, but it doesn't present all pro's (unless there has been some rewriting since last time I read it). Perhaps not all anti-arguments either. It is also an encyclopedia, which is not supposed to have it's own opinions on the matter, only present the facts and draw a conclusion.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Just my opinion, the Encyclopedia of Arda is not the most reliable source either.

[Grendel]

But are you critisising the way he has written it, or that the conclusions he make are wrong/he doesn't present all of the arguments against wing; or both?

There are two separate criticisms here. The first is that the article is not objective or fair, as some here have suggested. The more important criticism, however, is that his article is pure shite. He purposely leaves out points which are extremely damaging to his conclusion, and he barely covers thte ACTUAL TEXT of the FINISHED PRODUCT. He prefers to talk about what MIGHT be instead of what CLEARLY IS.

If you're going to say it's not true you have to proove that it's not true. It doesn't matter how he has written it, if it's actually true and you can't argue against it.

Yes, it DOES matter how he has written it (and I'm not talking about trying to prove a conclusion, I'm talking about the writing style and logical flaws). He utterly fails to prove his point on several levels. First, he assumes conclusions without support from valid premises. This is a classic logical flaw. He doesn't build an argument that can stand up on its own merit. He simply pronounces, without valid or logical support, that he is correct. Second, he bases his already invalid conclusions primarily upon the notes and other materials that are NOT part of the finished product. George Lucas first intended Jabba the Hut to be a hairy man (which one can see in the extra scenes of the special edition of the film). Later, he changed the character to the blob we all know from the original finished product of the film. Claiming that Balrogs have wings based on the notes before the finished product is just as invalid as claiming that Jabba the Hut is a hairy human.

The encyclopedia's article presents lots of pro-and anti arguments, but it doesn't present all pro's (unless there has been some rewriting since last time I read it).

As I've said several times now, the article very clearly provides links to pro-wing articles at the end. All the pros for both sides are readily available. And what exactly is missing from the Arda article that would support Balrog wings anyway?

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Grendel
"He never said they didn't have physical wings either."

"My biggest thing is, as I said above, why would Tolkien constantly speak of Balrogs on the level of winged like creatures. I think it's fair to say we can all agree there are a substantial amount of passages where Tolkien speaks of Balrogs and either refers to flight in some way or wings in some way, whether they are figurative or literal. The point is, the two seem to always accompany each other when Tolkien speaks of them. I mean if his descriptions always go back to that, and it doesn't just happen once or twice. There are many other forms of descriptions in writing he could have used outside of those, but yet everytime he goes back to them, makes you wonder why."

"I am really in the middle on it, but lean more towards that they did have wings..."


Oh yeah, you're right in the middle.

Wouldn't I know my own opinions best?

Just because I said I lean more towards that they had wings doesn't mean I can't be a centrist on the issue...

[Attalus]

LOL, are you two still going after it? Now I see why SF-Fandom forbids discussing Balrog wings.

[BeardofPants]

Balrogs had wings (man-shaped, wreathed in dark shadowy wings). Now stop yer arguing.

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Just my opinion, the Encyclopedia of Arda is not the most reliable source either.

No, it isn't.

[Falagar]

There are two separate criticisms here. The first is that the article is not objective or fair, as some here have suggested. The more important criticism, however, is that his article is pure shite. He purposely leaves out points which are extremely damaging to his conclusion, and he barely covers thte ACTUAL TEXT of the FINISHED PRODUCT. He prefers to talk about what MIGHT be instead of what CLEARLY IS.

And what clearly is? Nothing is clear, or it wouldn't be such a hot topic. If we don't get any good clues from what is used in the book, we may try to see how things were at one point, and might as well still be. He presented some things that J.R.R. Tolkien had written but which Christoffer had removed, he used some information from earlier drafts.

Yes, it DOES matter how he has written it (and I'm not talking about trying to prove a conclusion, I'm talking about the writing style and logical flaws). He utterly fails to prove his point on several levels. First, he assumes conclusions without support from valid premises. This is a classic logical flaw. He doesn't build an argument that can stand up on its own merit. He simply pronounces, without valid or logical support, that he is correct. Second, he bases his already invalid conclusions primarily upon the notes and other materials that are NOT part of the finished product. George Lucas first intended Jabba the Hut to be a hairy man (which one can see in the extra scenes of the special edition of the film). Later, he changed the character to the blob we all know from the original finished product of the film. Claiming that Balrogs have wings based on the notes before the finished product is just as invalid as claiming that Jabba the Hut is a hairy human.

Though I do agree that some of his conclusions were drawn "without support from valid premises", not all of them are.

As I've said several times now, the article very clearly provides links to pro-wing articles at the end. All the pros for both sides are readily available. And what exactly is missing from the Arda article that would support Balrog wings anyway?

Michael's first argument, for example:

They argue that since Tolkien introduces the wings with a simile, saying, "the shadow around it reached out LIKE two vast wings", the wings cannot be real. But the argument is flawed, because Tolkien also introduces the darkness (the "shadow") with a simile as well: "what it was could not be seen: it was LIKE a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe yet greater".

Also, if it was "only" shadows that stretched out like wings, there must have been something that made those shadows (or it may have been some kind of shadow-wings, as several people have said).

I think I will leave it at this and take BoP's advise, because none of us is going to convince the other that he (she? Sorry for asking) is right (besides, I don't want to get any higher on SGH's list ). You may think his article is "****", I think it has some valid points.

In my mind the Balrog doesn't have real wings. But my mind is small, those big wings probably won't fit into it.
If I've missed anything, please let me know. It's been a hard day and I'm very tired right now so I do not expect everything written above to be 100% correct...

[Attalus]

Originally posted by Falagar

Also, if it was "only" shadows that stretched out like wings, there must have been something that made those shadows (or it may have been some kind of shadow-wings, as several people have said).

In my mind the Balrog doesn't have real wings.

That is my feeling almost to a "T". I think that at one point, at least some of them could fly, but that does not necessarily involve functioning wings, See the hot-air baloon, for instance. I think the Balrog's wings were fashioned by it out of its shadowy substance, and were meant to intimidate.