the definative balrog answer :)

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Grendel
Yes, the balrog "arose" from DEEP underground. It was hiding there for centuries. It had to flee from Angmar when the forces of good were victorious, which is why the phrase "that, flying from thangorodrim" is followed by "had lain hidden". The word "flying" is clearly being used as a synonym for "flee". The balrog had to flee Thangorodrim and run and hide.

You need to read other quotes posted above, the "arose" is from something else, as you can read above, not from that same thing you keep talking about. Also, to say "flying" is definitively used as flee is pretty closed minded man, cuz there are other parts where Tolkien is speaking of winged creatures and he says "flying"...

[Attalus]

LOL, yes, the "arose" is not from LotR but from the published Silmarillion and from Morgoth's Ring. It does not refer alone to Durin's Bane but to all the surviving Balrogs after the assault on Angband. Durin's Bane was all but certainly among them.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Attalus
LOL, yes, the "arose" is not from LotR but from the published Silmarillion and from Morgoth's Ring. It does not refer alone to Durin's Bane but to all the surviving Balrogs after the assault on Angband. Durin's Bane was all but certainly among them.

Well also, the one that is mentioned in the LotR's is still compelling as well. Of course it's finding the balance between the figurative and literal. I do like the theory though about the Balrog's could have both characteristics as in they aren't all the same...

From Fellowship of the Ring, The Bridge of Khazad-dûm:

The Balrog reached the bridge. Gandalf stood in the middle of the span, leaning on the staff in his left hand, but in his other hand Glamdring gleamed, cold and white. His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings. It raised the whip, and the thongs whined and cracked. Fire came from its nostrils. But Gandalf stood firm.

Ok, now that passge sounds like the wings were only used as a metaphor and could really go either way. But it is the following passage that continues on that is more compelling...

The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall; but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom, he seemed small, and altogether alone: grey and bent, like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm.

Now, with this passage, if he meant it in a figurative sense, he would have used it as a metaphor or written as a simile like he did in the first passage. Here, that doesn't happen, it says clearly "its wings were spread from wall to wall". It doesn't say "its shadow was like wings spread from wall to wall".

[Grendel]

"Ok, now that passge sounds like the wings were only used as a metaphor .... Now, with this passage, if he meant it in a figurative sense, he would have used it as a metaphor or written as a simile like he did in the first passage. Here, that doesn't happen, it says clearly "its wings were spread from wall to wall". It doesn't say "its shadow was like wings spread from wall to wall"."

He doesn't have to. He already made it clear that the "wings" were figurative wings of shadow in the earlier passage. No need to reiterate that. Why would a professional writer like Tolkien, a person who loves and labors over every detail of language (sometimes painfully so), mix his metaphors like that, using both figurative and literal versions of the same word? He wouldn't.


"You need to read other quotes posted above, the "arose" is from something else, as you can read above, not from that same thing you keep talking about."

I have. I used quotes around the word because of how *I* used the word, not as a quotation. In other words, the word doesn't mean 'arose' as in flying, it means 'arose' as in rising up from the underground. So the quotes were added to show that, IMO, the meaning is NOT as previously suggested by others.


"Also, to say "flying" is definitively used as flee is pretty closed minded man, cuz there are other parts where Tolkien is speaking of winged creatures and he says "flying"..."

But does he follow the word "flying" in those other situations with the word "hiding"? No, he doesn't. You have to consider the context of the individual situation. Morgoth, the most powerful evil being in existence, has been defeated, and his minions are fleeing in terror. Of that there is no doubt. So clearly any use of phrases like 'flying from Thangorodrim' followed by a description of how the creatures then hid from the forces of good for centuries is not meant to describe flight with wings.

And pointing out that Tolkien used the same word differently in a completely unrelated situation means very little unless it shows a pattern of language usage.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Grendel
"Ok, now that passge sounds like the wings were only used as a metaphor .... Now, with this passage, if he meant it in a figurative sense, he would have used it as a metaphor or written as a simile like he did in the first passage. Here, that doesn't happen, it says clearly "its wings were spread from wall to wall". It doesn't say "its shadow was like wings spread from wall to wall"."

He doesn't have to. He already made it clear that the "wings" were figurative wings of shadow in the earlier passage. No need to reiterate that. Why would a professional writer like Tolkien, a person who loves and labors over every detail of language (sometimes painfully so), mix his metaphors like that, using both figurative and literal versions of the same word? He wouldn't.


"You need to read other quotes posted above, the "arose" is from something else, as you can read above, not from that same thing you keep talking about."

I have. I used quotes around the word because of how *I* used the word, not as a quotation. In other words, the word doesn't mean 'arose' as in flying, it means 'arose' as in rising up from the underground. So the quotes were added to show that, IMO, the meaning is NOT as previously suggested by others.


"Also, to say "flying" is definitively used as flee is pretty closed minded man, cuz there are other parts where Tolkien is speaking of winged creatures and he says "flying"..."

But does he follow the word "flying" in those other situations with the word "hiding"? No, he doesn't. You have to consider the context of the individual situation. Morgoth, the most powerful evil being in existence, has been defeated, and his minions are fleeing in terror. Of that there is no doubt. So clearly any use of phrases like 'flying from Thangorodrim' followed by a description of how the creatures then hid from the forces of good for centuries is not meant to describe flight with wings.

And pointing out that Tolkien used the same word differently in a completely unrelated situation means very little unless it shows a pattern of language usage.

I find it amusing how you are making it like it is a fact. How can you be so sure? I mean you are acting like you know Tolkien's thoughts. I just don't see how you can say it's one or the other for a fact...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Grendel, Tolkien wasn't a professional writer; he was a professional linguist/philologist. To the best of my knowledge, he never had one ounce of "professional" training in writing a story. Which, IMO, is one reason for the beauty. Once you make it professional, you take from it the quality of art.

He wouldn't.

How do you know? Why would he suddenly switch from simile to metaphor?

So clearly any use of phrases like 'flying from Thangorodrim' followed by a description of how the creatures then hid from the forces of good for centuries is not meant to describe flight with wings.

I wouldn't say "clearly", but I would agree that it's likely.

[Attalus]

I certainly agree that "flying" in "Flying from the ruin of Thangorodrim" was meant to be the participle of "flee." But, I don't think anyone can be sure that "its wings" were made of shadow, illusion, or bone and sinew. What are Balrogs made of, anyhow? The action quite obviously was meant to intimidate, like a cat puffing itself out, and that in itself indicates that he knew he was up against a foe worthy of his steel. It is interesting that the Balrog concentrates completely on Gandalf, ignoring the Ring. I take that to mean that it recognized a Maia of the opposite persuasion, and its hate was aroused.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

IIRC, Balrogs are said to be creatures of flame and shadow; so wouldn't a balrogs wings of shadow be as much a part of it as anything else?

[Dúnedain]

Here is another thing to think about. Almost everytime Balrgos are spoken about, there is some mention of wings, whether wings is said or some wording that could make it sound as if it might be flying or having wings. I just find that to be strange. I mean if they didn't have wings, then why are they referred to in such respects, ya know?

[Attalus]

I agree with Gwaihir that Balrogs were creatures of flame and shadow. After all, they were never Incarnated, that we know of. If that is taken to be so, then Balrogs definitely had wings.

[Grendel]

I find it amusing how you are making it like it is a fact. How can you be so sure? I mean you are acting like you know Tolkien's thoughts. I just don't see how you can say it's one or the other for a fact...

I don't have to know his thoughts. All I have to know is the difference between the word 'flying' when used to represent fleeing and 'flying' when used to represent flight. The fact that a major battle was just lost, the lord of darkness permanently banished into the void, and the Balrogs ran away and hid for thousands of years, is all it takes to convince me that "flying from Thangorodrim" is a description of fleeing. Believe whatever you want.

Grendel, Tolkien wasn't a professional writer; he was a professional linguist/philologist. To the best of my knowledge, he never had one ounce of "professional" training in writing a story. Which, IMO, is one reason for the beauty. Once you make it professional, you take from it the quality of art.

Use whatever adjective you want. He was too talented to make such an amateurish mistake.

But, I don't think anyone can be sure that "its wings" were made of shadow, illusion, or bone and sinew.

He clearly states that the wings are made of shadow. The question is whether or not they are part of the being or just a descriptive way of describing the creature's aura or the way the light moves around the beast.

Here is another thing to think about. Almost everytime Balrgos are spoken about, there is some mention of wings, whether wings is said or some wording that could make it sound as if it might be flying or having wings. I just find that to be strange. I mean if they didn't have wings, then why are they referred to in such respects, ya know?

That is immaterial. It only matters what Tolkien said about Balrogs. And he never said they have physical wings. His only use of the word 'wings' in reference to Balrogs was in the Moria description, and the reference is "shadowy wings". What other people say "almost everytime" proves or disproves nothing.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Gwaimir and Dunedain have outlined the definitive case for wings. The fact the creature is made of flame and shadow makes the wing reference on the bridge a slam dunk. Also, when the creature falls off the bridge Tolkien says "It's shadow plunged down and vanished"

As for Dunadain’s observation; am I to believe that:

1. flying from Thangorodrim,

2. and now swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire.

3. His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings. It raised the whip, and the thongs whined and cracked. Fire came from its nostrils. But Gandalf stood firm.

4. and its wings were spread from wall to wall

You are seriously arguing that Tolkien is attempting to paint a mental picture in the reader’s mind of a wingless, land-bound creature incapable of flight?

[Grendel]

You are seriously arguing that Tolkien is attempting to paint a mental picture in the reader’s mind of a wingless, land-bound creature incapable of flight?

Absolutely, squinteyedsoutherner. Go back to the early posts in this thread and follow the link I posted to the Encyclopedia of Arda. Read the articles posted there. If you are still unconvinced, then I submit that you are hopelessly biased. I went to that site convinced that Balrogs had wings and walked away convinced that they do not.

flying from Thangorodrim

Clearly used to mean flee if you continue to read the reference. Almost everyone here agrees on that point.

and now swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire.

People often suggest that AROSE, PASSED OVER, and TEMPEST are used to describe flight in this case. But Tolkien often uses those same words to describe NON-flight. For example:

AROSE

"Now the Lady [Galadriel] arose, and Celeborn led them back to the hythe."
FotR, Farewell to Lorien

"At length they [Aragorn and company] arose, and took their leave of the Lady, and thanked her for her care, and went to their rest."
RotK, The Passing of the Grey Company

PASSED OVER

"Of their [Isildur and company] journey nothing is told until they had passed over the Dagorlad, and on northward into the wide and empty lands south of Greenwood the Great."
UT, The Disaster of the Gladden Fields

"A short way back the road had bent a little northward and the stretch that they [Frodo and Sam] had passed over was now screened from sight."
RotK, The Land of Shadow

"Then Fingolfin beheld (as it seemed to him) the utter ruin of the Noldor, and the defeat beyond redress of all their houses; and filled with wrath and despair he mounted upon Rochallor his great horse and rode forth alone, and none might restrain him. He passed over Dor-nu-Fauglith like a wind amid the dust, and all that beheld his onset fled in amaze, thinking that Orome himself was come..."
Silm, Of the Ruin of Beleriand

TEMPEST

"Then the Orcs screamed, waving spear and sword, and shooting a cloud of arrows at any that stood revealed upon the battlements; and the men of the Mark amazed looked out, as it seemed to them, upon a great dark field of corn, tossed by a tempest of war, and every ear glinted with barbed light."
TT, Helm's Deep

"Like a crash of tempest the guard of the Wing were amid the men of the Mole, and these were stricken asunder."
BoLT2, The Fall of Gondolin

"Then tumult awoke, a tempest wild
in rage roaring that rocked the walls;
consuming madness seized on Morgoth"
LoB, Second Version of the Children of Hurin ~216


So it is by no means clear that wings were intended in the Hithlum passage.

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

This is so obvious and clearly stated that it is amazing to me that anyone takes this as meaning physical wings. He says "the SHADOW reached out LIKE two vast wings". They weren't wings. They were LIKE wings. And it is the shadow being discussed, not the Balrog. The argument is whether or not the shadow is part of the being or not. In either case, actual wings are not being discussed. The reference is clearly figurative. "LIKE wings", not "wings".

and its wings were spread from wall to wall

This is just a continuation of the previous "wings of shadow" reference. If he was talking about actual physical wings, then he made a horrible blunder in using the word 'wings' as a figurative reference and then using it to discuss real wings just a few lines later. *I* wouldn't make such an obvious mistake. If we assume that Tolkien is too skilled a writer to make such a blunder, then it becomes clear that the "wings were spread" line is just a continuation of the very obviously figurative reference from a few lines back.

As I said before, go to the Encyclopedia of Arda and read the articles there. If you remain unconvinced, then there is little point in talking about it any further here.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

I have read many articles on this debate, and most read like your post, (it depends on what the definition of is is). I also noticed you did not address “winged speed”or Gwaimir’s point.

Perhaps someone can post an example, but winged speed is an odd way to describe movement without wings.

As for Gwaimir's point. Since the creature is (in part) made of shadow, I find it far more likely that Tolkien is describing the creature spreading out something (shadowy) that is wing like, which once fully spread and visible, are indeed just that, wings made of shadow spreading from wall to wall.

If Tolkien is indeed describing a wingless/flightless creature than he has (inadvertently) misled the majority of his readers by his continued references to things relating to flight while describing this terrestrial creature. A simple image search of Balrog on the internet will show well above 90% of illustrations of Balrogs contain wings. I think that probably reflects quite accurately the number of readers who take that image away from the text. It doesn’t mean it is correct, but it does show (albeit unscientifically) that it is the most common perspective, which would also, I believe, support the belief that that was the author's intent.

[Grendel]

I also noticed you did not address “winged speed”or Gwaimir’s point.

Wrong. I did address Gwaimir's point. I said, "The argument is whether or not the shadow is part of the being or not. In either case, actual wings are not being discussed." That fully addresses the point. Whether or not a Balrog is partially made of shadow or simply shrouded in constant shadow because they repel light is not as clear and assured as Gwaimir suggests. The debate still lingers on that point.

As for "winged speed", there is no need to address it. The word 'winged' is an adjective in that sentence. It is not a noun. It is simply describing the speed. Obviously the intent is to show that the Balrogs were very fast. If he had said "slowly they arose, and they passed with slithering speed over Hithlum" we would understand that Balrogs were quite slow, but we would not be led to believe that they had no arms and legs and must crawl like a snake. It's called a metaphor.

If Tolkien is indeed describing a wingless/flightless creature than he has (inadvertently) misled the majority of his readers by his continued references to things relating to flight while describing this terrestrial creature. A simple image search of Balrog on the internet will show well above 99% of illustrations of Balrogs contain wings. I think that probably reflects quite accurately the number of readers who take that image away from the text. It doesn’t mean it is correct, but it does show (albeit unscientifically) that it is the most common perspective, which would also, I believe, support the belief that that was the author's intent.

I shouldn't even address this because it is a massive failure of logic. 600 years ago, more than 99% of the planet believed the earth was flat and pretty much every illustration showed the earth as flat. Clearly then, the Earth must be flat, right? An ignorant majority is not an accurate majority.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Your explanation of “winged speed” speaks for itself. It depends what the definition of is is.

To your second point:

The only failure of logic is not understanding the difference between a subjective description and physics. Either Tolkien accidentally used too many flight related words when describing Balrogs (which resulted in the majority of readers forming an incorrect mental image), or Balrogs have wings. That is my point. It is my opinion that the latter is more likely correct than the former.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Grendel
That is immaterial. It only matters what Tolkien said about Balrogs. And he never said they have physical wings. His only use of the word 'wings' in reference to Balrogs was in the Moria description, and the reference is "shadowy wings". What other people say "almost everytime" proves or disproves nothing.

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

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Grendel
Absolutely, squinteyedsoutherner. Go back to the early posts in this thread and follow the link I posted to the Encyclopedia of Arda. Read the articles posted there. If you are still unconvinced, then I submit that you are hopelessly biased. I went to that site convinced that Balrogs had wings and walked away convinced that they do not.

It's funny how you say that the Encyclopedia of Arda article proves it, yet this is how they end that debate:

From Encyclopedia of Arda:

Wherever the evidence lies, it's a fact that nobody knows for sure what the answer is. Only Tolkien himself could have told us, and he never made a definite statement on the topic.

Seems like they really don't know for sure either

[Dúnedain]

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...

[Grendel]

Your explanation of “winged speed” speaks for itself. It depends what the definition of is is.

Yes, and I am using the standard definitions and you are using the Bill Clinton definitions.

Either Tolkien accidentally used too many flight related words when describing Balrogs (which resulted in the majority of readers forming an incorrect mental image), or Balrogs have wings.

Or neither. "Tempest" is not a flight-related word. Neither is "arose" in most cases. "Passed over" can be flight-related but is certainly not always so. And Tolkien used the phrase "passed over" many times to discuss non-flying people. You are trying to limit the choices unreasonably in order to favor your point. Nice try though.

Encyclopedia of Arda: Wherever the evidence lies, it's a fact that nobody knows for sure what the answer is. Only Tolkien himself could have told us, and he never made a definite statement on the topic.

Dunedain: Seems like they really don't know for sure either

I see you failed to include the paragraph that came immediately before the one you posted:

"It's probably fair to say that there is no incontrovertible evidence for real wings, and that there are at least two strong objections to their existence. Given the current state of the argument, then, the weight of evidence seems to come down pretty heavily on the 'no wings' side of the debate. 'Weight of evidence', though, isn't proof: there's always room for research and reinterpretation."

Of course they don't know for sure, but they clearly favor the 'no wings' position. Your attempt to show their position as neutral or completely undecided is debating in bad faith.

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

He also never said that they didn't have big floppy feet. He also never said they didn't have giant spherical red noses and polka-dotted shirts. Does that mean that Balrogs look like circus clowns? Should we assume that Balrogs have everything that Tolkien failed to mention that they do not have? Or should we base our decisions on what he DID say they have? I prefer the latter. And what he said is that they are basically no greater than man-sized. If they had wings, and could fly, then why do several of them fall to their deaths? If they had physical wings of any kind (usable or not), why are they not mentioned ... ever ... in any description of Balrogs that Tolkien ever wrote?

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.

No it is NOT fair to say. And no, there are NOT a substantial amount of passages where Tolkien speaks of Balrogs while referring to flight or wings. There is ONE instance where the word 'wings' is used. That is in the Moria reference. And he is using the word as a metaphor to describe the shadow. And the word 'winged' is used an an adjective in another reference. Besides that, Tolkien never uses a 'wing' reference when discussing Balrogs and he never describes a Balrog as a flying creature ever. He DOES say that they leap and step and walk, however. Why so many obvious references to land-bound movement and not one single mention of a Balrog flying ... ever?