the definative balrog answer :) [Archive]

Kirinki54

10-15-2001, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by Inoldonil
But 'Captain' probably does mean Gothmog was the general of Angband's military. The head guy in Hell was Morgoth, as you know.

Yes, but if even Morgoth probably held all strings very tight, being a general still entails a lot mot than charging against the opponent. A good general must have skills in many areas, That´s why I wonder.

Originally posted by Inoldonil
The Balrog of Mória (despite his lack of people-skills) none the less ruled Mória, politically and militarily. Look at the Witch-king. Gothmog must have ruled by oppression and terror.

If I may say so, Moria seems to have been rather sloppily run when the Nine arrived. There was a creature watching the gate, but I find no indication it communicated with the Orcs, Trolls or Balrog inside of Moria. And the gate seems not to have been guarded on the inside. Not until Pippin alerts the inhabitants (likely the Balrog) do we find a indication of them.
When the Nine are attacked, it is true the Orcs stand back by the bridge to let their champion do the fighting (who wouldn´t?), but is he really in command besides being the biggest bully around?
A well run military force would not have let the remaining Company depart through the east gate.
As for the Witch-King, he had actually been a king to rule a large kingdom, and probably was extremly clever and skilled even before he was snared totally by Sauron.
IMHO.

Miriel Stormrider

10-15-2001, 02:33 PM

Who said anything about Moria being a well run military force?:confused: I think, when not manipulated or controlled by Sauron, orcs and trolls and things (like Balrogs) hole up and spend their time terrorizing the surrounding neighborhood (& each other).
Most of Sauron's (and Morgoth's) creatures are just slaves, not really capable of leading (except through fear), or cooporating to reach a common goal.
Some of course, like the Witch King, are smart enough to think and plan for themselves.

Kirinki54

10-15-2001, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Miriel Stormrider
I think, when not manipulated or controlled by Sauron, orcs and trolls and things (like Balrogs) hole up and spend their time terrorizing the surrounding neighborhood (& each other).

Then perhaps you share my confusion on Gothmog being the Angband Captain?

Ñólendil

10-16-2001, 12:01 AM

Miriel and Kirinki, I actually agree with you both. Durin's Bane none the less ran the place 'politically and militarily' you could still say. Well, maybe not politically. He didn't have a whole lot to work with, but there ya go.

Wayfarer

10-16-2001, 06:25 PM

"Without changing the argument though the balrog question is simply that we can never know. Personally i believe there are metahorical wings emphasising the monstrous power and terror of the balrog. It has no real wings as in to fly, this can be seen by him not flying out of the chasm, coupled with this is his fall from the peak of Z [cant remember how to spell it] although gandalf casts him down surely a winged creature could use these wings as either a defensive advantage or an attacking advantage. "

LoL! Metaphorical wings!

Although, if his wings were spread from wall to wall, he wouldnt have been able to fly in moria. And on zirak zigilgandalf and the balrog were still inside the tower (I believe). It was only after gandalf had killed the balrog and blasted him throuhgh the stone walls that he fell.

Ñólendil

10-16-2001, 08:42 PM

They weren't still in Durin's Tower: 'It was made, and it had not been destroyed,' said Gandalf. 'From the lowest dungeon to the highest peak it climbed, ascending in unbroken spiral in many thousand steps, until it issues at last in Durin's Tower carved in the living rock of Zirakzigil, the pinnacle of the Silvertine.

'There upon Celebdil was a lonely window in the snow, and before it lay a narrow space, a dizzy eyrie above the mists of the world. The sun shone fiercely there, but all below was wrapped in cloud. Out he sprang, and even as I came behind, he burst into new flame. There was none to see, or perhaps in after ages songs would still be sung of the Battle of the Peak.' Suddenly Gandalf laughed. 'But what would they say in song? Those that looked up from afar thought that the mountain was crowned with storm. Thunder they heard, and lightning, they said, smote upon Celebdil, and leaped back broken into tongues of fire. Is not that enough? A great smoke rose about us, vapour and steam. Ice fell like rain. I threw down my enemy, and he fell from the high place and broke the mountain-side where he smote it in his ruin. Then darkness took me, and I strayed out of thought and time, and I wandered far on roads that I will not tell. ...

The last days or day of the battle was thus fought on the top of Durin's Tower, the very pinnacle of Zirakzigil.

Wayfarer

10-17-2001, 04:28 PM

Huh.

All that smiting of fire and lightning sound to me like the balrog could have been swooping down on gandalf.

Prince Faramir

10-17-2001, 06:00 PM

don't 'lol' at my points you were both rude and IMO wrong.

i think my point of metaphorical wings was right, his darkness [wings spreading from wall to wall]could be understood to be just that, darkness like wings smothering the enemy.

dont like your tone wayfarer, please change it

Ñólendil

10-17-2001, 06:18 PM

Oh, he's always like that Prince :p . He wasn't seriously laughing at you, he comes from a Tolkien forum in which it is quite normal to poke fun at eachother. I think what he found most humourous was your use of the word 'metaphorical'. I think what you actually meant was that the Balrog's wings were not physical, actual wings, but shadowy. That does not make them metaphorical, technically. Personally I would respond to him with 'Pooey', but that's me.

You are, however, encouraged to smack him when he starts correcting your spelling mistakes.

Wayfarer

10-18-2001, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Prince Faramir
dont like your tone wayfarer, please change it

I assume you're using a compound statement/request and not an order in that sentance? In that case, you should make use of a reflexive pronoun. 'I' would be quite suitable.

If you are not, but in fact are stating an imperitive that I dislike my tone, I must reply as follows: Bah!

In any case, I have a number of alternate tones at my disposal. Perhaps you would enjoy one of these?

*outrageous drawl (I.e. my next door neighbor)* "I reckon tha' thisa one is mer suitable, doncha agree?"

*tittering* Oh, yes! Morthoron has a pair of tights _just_ like those, but the chainmail halter is _too_ braldor.

*Nasal* (raises nose in the air, and assumes Erudite stance)Yes, well, you see. My deployment of upherism premonstrating an inference of atticism in a prior theorum is quite frankly, none of your business.

*singing elaborately* Spam (lovely spam) spam spam spam, (beautiful spam) spam spam spam, spam spam spam, wonderful spaaam!

*harsh* Ash nazg durbatuluk! ash nazg gimbatul! Ash nazg thrakatuluk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul!

*/waits for clouds to pass, and elves to uncover their ears, then continues:

*bell tone* DING DONG

*Dial Tone* Beep Beep Beep Beep

*Tuning fork* riiiiiinnnnggggg

*monotone* I...am...run...ning...for...pres...i...dent

Find anything you like?

]:) <-Mad Cow!

afro-elf

10-18-2001, 07:40 PM

You have a biting wit that I enjoy, but there were a few errors in your post.

I assume you're using a compound statement/request and not an order in that sentance? In that case, you should make use of a reflexive pronoun. 'I' would be quite suitable

I is not a reflexive pronoun. It is a person pronoun.

If you are not, but in fact are stating an imperitive that I dislike my tone, I must reply as follows: Bah!

I think you meant that HE dislikes your tone. Not that you dislike your tone. I think you like your tone very much.

upherism

Did you perhaps mean euphemism?

premonstrating

Did you perhaps mean remonstarting or even demonstrating?

braldor

I won't even feign to know what that means.

theorum

Unless this is a British spelling this word is new to me. The word theorem which seems the closet in spelling does not apply to your sentence. ( at least not in a way that makes sense to me). But, if you meant forum then it makes more sense.

Erudite

Were you using erudite it is actually meaning (learned) or in its popular form meaning (rude or arrogant?)

Other wise I loved your biting wit. I just hope it is not turned against me.

Ñólendil

10-18-2001, 08:04 PM

lol afro-elf! Can't put one passed a teacher!

Braldor (and Morthoron also) is a poster on another Middle-earth website btw.

Wayfarer

10-18-2001, 09:39 PM

You have a biting wit that I enjoy, but there were a few errors in your post.

I appreciate the help. ;)

"I is not a reflexive pronoun. It is a person pronoun."

I suppose that's true. I was thinking reflexive=back on ones self.

Truth be told, I never was much for knowing what those things were. Although I finally learned what a geran is, and thus can no longer use it as an example of 'things nobody needs to know'

"I think you meant that HE dislikes your tone. Not that you dislike your tone. I think you like your tone very much."

I knew what he meant. He forgot to put an I before it, as I noted above (the exact manner of pronoun being quite beside the point)

Did you perhaps mean euphemism?

What can I say? SIC

Did you perhaps mean remonstarting or even demonstrating?

No, I meant premonstration. That is, the appearance of. Saying 'lol' had the appearance of thinking that what he said was funny. I did, of course.

"I won't even feign to know what that means."

I'd post a link to some morty/braldor poems, but anduin thought the preface to bored of the rings was bad (and I'm not one to tempt fate)

theorum

"Unless this is a British spelling this word is new to me. The word theorem which seems the closet in spelling does not apply to your sentence. ( at least not in a way that makes sense to me). But, if you meant forum then it makes more sense."

His point, Idea, theorem. yeah, a mispeleng on my part. He had theorized that balrog wings were metaphorical. I suppose theory would have been more correct.

"Were you using erudite it is actually meaning (learned) or in its popular form meaning (rude or arrogant?)"

A little of both. I was attempting to come off as high and lofty, while at the same time managing to be somewhat arrogant.

"Other wise I loved your biting wit. I just hope it is not turned against me."

You shall have to ask Randy...er, inoldil... about the time I megaflamed him. Of course, we were both much less mature (and less educated.) Although, the aforementioned Morthoron is far my better in this fine art. Not bad, for someone three times my age with half my IQ. ]:)

Oh, I can't help myself. Here's but a sample of the works of morthoron and braldor:

Edited by Inoldonil: Not for our younger posters!
Middle-earth Poetry Contest on the Tolkien Trail! (http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=15124427&page=1)

So I lied. Maybe I _am_ one to tempt fate.:rolleyes:

afro-elf

10-19-2001, 01:42 AM

i am glad you tempted fate

that was some sick genius

to bad its over i would have like to have joined in the fray

Wayfarer

10-20-2001, 12:46 PM

Ah, yes. Unfortunately, braldor has temporarily retired from our forums. I'll let you know when he get's back. (the dwarf/elf poems are somewhat of a routine over there.

Agburanar

10-21-2001, 04:30 PM

Past a teacher surely! Just like you can't get past the Balrog cos his WINGS get in the way (whether you believe in them or not.)

Arathorn II

10-22-2001, 08:15 PM

Balrogs were Maia, the same basic beings as Sauron, though like a different breed of dog, as it were. They powerful, but in different ways. But while the Balrog were corrupted by Morgoth, Sauron was Morgoth's servant basically from the start. They both ruled by terror and brute power. Balrogs were intelligent, and a main weapon of Morgoth. They were cunning, and laid traps and sieges with equal success.

Kirinki54

10-23-2001, 12:27 PM

Is it ever mentioned that Balrogs speak? If so, how?

Arathorn II

10-23-2001, 06:14 PM

"Is it ever mentioned that Balrogs speak? If so, how?"

Not that I can find, in the Silmarillion or elsewhere.

Agburanar

10-26-2001, 06:24 AM

The power of speech is a subject covered extenisively by Tolkien, Saruman and Sauron both use it to further their enterprises and Gandalf himself uses it to his benefit (and that of the free peoples of course). Morgoth seems to have preffered force and so his creations (eg the Balrogs) seem to have been unable to speak. Possibly this is how Sauron managed to survive, he was more cunning and less brutal.

The orcs were corruptions of other races and so were capable of speech but Morgoth altered them to limit and corrupt their speech, meaning that Sauron had to 'import' other speakers (Saruman, The Mouth, The Nazgul etc.)? Can you tell I'm writing this on a college computer???

Kirinki54

10-26-2001, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Agburanar
Morgoth seems to have preffered force and so his creations (eg the Balrogs) seem to have been unable to speak.

The Balrogs do come across as the strong silent type... :)
Which makes it again a bit surprising that Gothmog was the Captain of Angband.

College computer? Not apparent to me.

Wayfarer

10-26-2001, 01:11 PM

*MENTAL PICTURE*

Large horde of orcs and men assembled in angband cavern. Gothmog on podium, waving his arms and wings wildly like a silent movie hitler.

*/ Points to gates at the end of the room.

Horde rushes through door and out onto the plain.

*/Points to armies of the Noldor.

Horde rushes across plain toward Noldor.

*/Points to Feanor

Horde rushes and surrounds Feanor.

*/Points to ground.

Other balrogs rush up with maces and batter feanor into the ground.

Hey. This could work! :p

afro-elf

10-26-2001, 01:20 PM

you are twisted

Meant as a compliment

Wayfarer

10-26-2001, 02:13 PM

*/Speaks from underneath the table due to his contorted position.

"Thanks...But I could use a Little help getting _un_ twisted now...

Ñólendil

10-26-2001, 10:52 PM

Arathorn, welcome!

Sauron was not a servant of Morgoth 'basically from the start'. Not anymore than the Balrogs, if not indeed less. Sauron was originally of Aule's people.

Balrogs speaking: in a letter Tolkien noted that the Balrog of Mória never made any audible sound whatsoever, and seems to imply that this was normal for the Balrogs (of which Tolkien decided that there were very few). But the Balrog lets out a terrible cry as he falls down the Chasm, or so the text seems to say.

Angburanar, Morgoth did not make the Balrogs! They were created by Eru, Morgoth corrupted them. Not as he did to 'make' the Orcs: he corrupted them spritually, on purpose or indirectly.

Kirinki54

10-27-2001, 03:36 AM

Originally posted by Inoldonil
Balrogs speaking: in a letter Tolkien noted that the Balrog of Mória never made any audible sound whatsoever, and seems to imply that this was normal for the Balrogs (of which Tolkien decided that there were very few).

Thanks for the info but makes me wonder just how they communicated. Obviously they must have some means. Remember our discussion on Gothmog the commander of Angband? Telepathy? And could they use their abilities to anyone or just "the dark side"?

Elenhin

10-27-2001, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by Inoldonil
Sauron was not a servant of Morgoth 'basically from the start'. Not anymore than the Balrogs, if not indeed less. Sauron was originally of Aule's people.
To me the texts seem to suggest that the Balrogs were originally maiar of Melkor, just as much as Sauron was a maia of Aule and Osse was a maia of Ulmo. Which, I think, you are saying here.

Balrogs speaking: in a letter Tolkien noted that the Balrog of Mória never made any audible sound whatsoever, and seems to imply that this was normal for the Balrogs (of which Tolkien decided that there were very few). But the Balrog lets out a terrible cry as he falls down the Chasm, or so the text seems to say.
I disagree with your interpretation of the letter. What Tolkien wrote is: "The Balrog never speaks or makes any vocal sound at all. Above all he does not laugh or sneer..." (italics in the original). This letter was in response to a proposed movie storyline - which was really unfaithful to the books - and it seems that the writer of the storyline had made the Balrog laugh and sneer at the Fellowship in the Bridge scene. I don't think that Tolkien was talking about the Balrog's ability to speak, but just about the fact that it never speaks in the bridge scene.

Remember also that the Balrog had cast a counter-spell to Gandalf's door-closing spell, and in Middle-earth spells are usually sung or chanted (Gandalf, Bombadil, Barrow-wights, Felagund...). I also believe that the Balrog was in command of the orcs in Moria and that it had to instruct them by speaking.

Wayfarer

10-27-2001, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Elenhin

To me the texts seem to suggest that the Balrogs were originally maiar of Melkor, just as much as Sauron was a maia of Aule and Osse was a maia of Ulmo. Which, I think, you are saying here.

There were no maiur of melkor, at least not spoken of the texts. The other Valar were each specialists, Melkor was a jack of all trades, so to speak.

When he tried to set up his own 'lordship', a number of ainur from all different backgrounds followed him. Foremost were the maiur of aule, which included sauron and the balrogs.

Ñólendil

10-27-2001, 03:57 PM

I disagree with your interpretation of the letter. What Tolkien wrote is: "The Balrog never speaks or makes any vocal sound at all. Above all he does not laugh or sneer..." (italics in the original). This letter was in response to a proposed movie storyline - which was really unfaithful to the books - and it seems that the writer of the storyline had made the Balrog laugh and sneer at the Fellowship in the Bridge scene. I don't think that Tolkien was talking about the Balrog's ability to speak, but just about the fact that it never speaks in the bridge scene.

But Tolkien says the Balrog did not make any vocal sound at all. That is not true, as it lets out a terrible cry whilst falling down the Chasm.

Shannon (do you mind me calling you that?), the Balrogs are not said to be of Aule's people in the Beginning. The only members of his people that have been named are Curumo and Thauron (Sauron). I guess it's true that he had no people per se in the beginning, and that he gained his followers during the Ainulindalë, when he set his discord against the Themes of God. That maybe is when the Balrogs came to him. If pressed, I would guess that they were originally of the people of Varda and/or Vána, if the other Valar indeed had their own folk then. If not then you could say Melkor had his own people.

ArwenEvenstar

10-28-2001, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Agburanar
The Balrog could have potentially been an image of everyone's worst nightmare, so it would have a different form (although still fiery) for everyone. No wings required! The end.

That actually makes sense

Agburanar

11-06-2001, 03:51 PM

Cheers Arwen.

If Morgoth corrupted the Balrogs... hmm, thought coming but can't quite get it...

They must have joined him of their own free will, Morgoth couldn't have enslaved and tortured them by himself could he? So if the Balrogs were like Sauron, they were Maia, and chose to be with Morgoth, could Sauron not have attained a similar form? What made him different from the Balrogs or were they something completely different, more corrupted trolls or something?

Comic Book Guy

11-06-2001, 05:33 PM

The Balrogs were Maia of fire, which, when corrupted they chose to become the 'Valaraukar' which means 'Fire-Demon', most probally to strike fear into the hearts of Elves and Orcs. Sauron was Maia of Aulë and was a skin changer, so he didn't have one real form.

Ñólendil

11-06-2001, 05:38 PM

The Balrogs are known to be fallen Maiar. All of the Ainur used forms visible to us as clothes, clothes that were expressions of their personalities. So may Yavanna clothe herself as a great tree, crowned by the sun under heaven -- while Melkor's original form on Earth was a great mountain that wades in the water, ice-cloaked and crowned with smoke and fire.

The normal state of your typical Ainu was unclothed, as a naked spirit. Some became Incarnate by their own free will or by design (such as Melian and the Istari), some lost their ability to change shape or walk unclad (such as Melkor and Sauron). Sauron's ability as a 'shape-shifter' is marked, it appears he was better at changing his clothes than others, or had more to choose from by some art. I don't doubt that before the making of the Ring Sauron could have looked like a Balrog if he wished (or look like what a Balrog wished to looked like most of the time). He lossed his ability to change shape after he put so much of himself in the Ring, though he had already been rendered incapable of assuming a fair form after the destruction of Númenor.

CBG (nice avatar btw), 'Vala' means 'Power'.

Prince Faramir

11-06-2001, 07:15 PM

"I assume you're using a compound statement/request and not an order in that sentance? In that case, you should make use of a reflexive pronoun. 'I' would be quite suitable.

If you are not, but in fact are stating an imperitive that I dislike my tone, I must reply as follows: Bah!

In any case, I have a number of alternate tones at my disposal. Perhaps you would enjoy one of these?

*outrageous drawl (I.e. my next door neighbor)* "I reckon tha' thisa one is mer suitable, doncha agree?"

*tittering* Oh, yes! Morthoron has a pair of tights _just_ like those, but the chainmail halter is _too_ braldor.

*Nasal* (raises nose in the air, and assumes Erudite stance)Yes, well, you see. My deployment of upherism premonstrating an inference of atticism in a prior theorum is quite frankly, none of your business.

*singing elaborately* Spam (lovely spam) spam spam spam, (beautiful spam) spam spam spam, spam spam spam, wonderful spaaam!

*harsh* Ash nazg durbatuluk! ash nazg gimbatul! Ash nazg thrakatuluk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul!

*/waits for clouds to pass, and elves to uncover their ears, then continues:

*bell tone* DING DONG

*Dial Tone* Beep Beep Beep Beep

*Tuning fork* riiiiiinnnnggggg

*monotone* I...am...run...ning...for...pres...i...dent

Find anything you like?"

Do I insult you for trying [failing miserably though] to be clever, arrogant, obnoxious and patronising?

Or do I just take it on the chin like a proud and dignified Englishman.

Chin it is.......... :)

Wayfarer

11-06-2001, 10:15 PM

]:)

Prince Faramir

11-07-2001, 12:00 PM

i condiser us to be now message board allies.

Grendel

11-09-2001, 03:13 AM

IMHO, the answer to whether balrogs have wings or not can be found here:

http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/

If you look up 'Balrog', there is an excellent section covering both sides of the argument about balrog wings. It completely cleared the issue up for me.

Grendel

Agburanar

11-09-2001, 06:19 AM

The Balrog in Lord of the Rings was awakened by dwarves delving deep into the mountains, yes? Does this mean that they did not serve Sauron, were there more Balrogs in the world, and if they were not connected to Sauron did they continue surviving after Sauron's fall?

Ñólendil

11-09-2001, 05:59 PM

The Balrog in Lord of the Rings was awakened by dwarves delving deep into the mountains, yes?

Yep.

Does this mean that they did not serve Sauron, were there more Balrogs in the world, and if they were not connected to Sauron did they continue surviving after Sauron's fall

In itself, I don't think it has anything to say for the Balrog's allegiance. Whether the Balrogs (or Balrog anyway) were/was in the service of Sauron is debated. I do not personally believe there were any other Balrogs left in the world besides the one that Gandalf destroyed. In Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age, it is said that most of the Balrogs were destroyed in the War of Wrath and that several hid themselves beneath the earth. But this was written by JRR Tolkien when he thought that there were hosts of Balrogs in existence. He later decided that there were '(say) three or at most seven' of them. If five can be allowed to survive when hosts exists, I doubt any more than one would survive with 3-7 Balrogs altogether.

Darkside Spirit

11-16-2001, 04:42 PM

The Balrog is a very mysterious, unseen, but extremely powerful creature. In one way I'd like to know more about it, but on the other hand maybe it's best that it remains a sort of mystery menace.

The Balrog doesn't appear to be as "dark" as the Nazgul, although it is more powerful - IIRC, when a Nazgul passed overhead, Frodo thought that it was not a Balrog, but something more sinister. Correct me if I'm wrong, I only have a vague recollection of that point in the journey.

Quazar

11-17-2001, 04:08 PM

A Balrog is a Balrog is a Balrog. Wings or no wings it like the Jabberwalkie in 'Alice In Wonderland'. It is as powerful as our imagination makes it. If it indeed has wings in the movie it will be because the CGI animater decides it will be so.

"A Quote is a Quote is a Quote"

Smiles All

Dúnedain

11-20-2003, 12:39 PM

Quoted from Appendix A in LotR under:

Appendix A III: Durin's Folk

It came to pass that in the middle of the Third Age Durin was again its king, being the sixth of that name. The power of Sauron, servant of Morgoth, was then again growing in the world, though the Shadow in the Forest that looked towards Moria was not yet known for what it was. All evil things were stirring. The Dwarves delved deep at that time, seeking beneath Barazinbar for mithril, the metal beyond price that was becoming yearly ever harder to win. Thus they roused from sleep a thing of terror that, flying from Thangorodrim, had lain hidden at the foundations of the earth since the coming of the Host of the West: a Balrog of Morgoth. During was slain by it, and the year after Náin, his son; and then the glory of Moria passed, and its people were destroyed or fled far away.

Had to put my two cents in :D

Tuor of Gondolin

11-20-2003, 01:46 PM

Thus they roused from sleep a thing of terror that, flying from Thangorodrim, had lain hidden at the foundations of the earth since the coming of the Host of the West: a Balrog of Morgoth
________________________________________

Ahhhhh! But does "flying" mean moving through the air or running fast?:D :D :D

Actually that's a good point, maybe they did fly. Good grief, did PJ actually get something right?:eek:

Dúnedain

11-20-2003, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Tuor of Gondolin
Thus they roused from sleep a thing of terror that, flying from Thangorodrim, had lain hidden at the foundations of the earth since the coming of the Host of the West: a Balrog of Morgoth
________________________________________

Ahhhhh! But does "flying" mean moving through the air or running fast?:D :D :D

Indeed that is a question for the ages. I think though you can place together compelling arguements from both sides of it with other quotes that tie in to both aspects.

See here is my thing. Tolkien uses "fly" in a number of ways in his works, so it is hard to tell in this instance, however if he wanted it to say that the Balrog was escaping or running away, then the proper usage would be the term "flight" which is a derivation of "fly", but who knows :D

Attalus

11-20-2003, 04:02 PM

I have gone to being sure that Balrogs had wings to being sure that they didn't, and now I'm just neutral. To me the most telling evidence that they, or at least some of them did, was the passage in Morgoth's Ring :Deep in forgotten places [Morgoth's] cry was heard. Far beneath the ruined halls of Angband, in vaults to which the Valar in the haste of their assault had not descended, Balrogs lurked still, awaiting ever the return of their Lord; and now swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire.(p. 297 in the U.S. hardbacked edition) But, I am also far from convinced that they all looked alike, and what they are made of, since shadow can be said to be a body material for a creature of fire.

Dúnedain

11-20-2003, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Attalus
I have gone to being sure that Balrogs had wings to being sure that they didn't, and now I'm just neutral. To me the most telling evidence that they, or at least some of them did, was the passage in Morgoth's Ring :(p. 297 in the U.S. hardbacked edition) But, I am also far from convinced that they all looked alike, and what they are made of, since shadow can be said to be a body material for a creature of fire.

Wow, I've never read that one. That is pretty compelling as well in my opinion...

Attalus

11-20-2003, 08:02 PM

Glad you liked it; credit Michael Martinez for pointing it out. ;)

Grendel

11-20-2003, 10:32 PM

Gandalf told the fellowship "Fly you fools" just before the Balrog pulled him down. Are you suggesting that he wanted them to sprout wings and take off in the air? :D

Dúnedain

11-20-2003, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by Grendel
Gandalf told the fellowship "Fly you fools" just before the Balrog pulled him down. Are you suggesting that he wanted them to sprout wings and take off in the air? :D

Like I said, I know Tolkien uses "fly" in different ways, however saying "fly" and "flying" are two different things...Read my comments above...

Gwaimir Windgem

11-21-2003, 06:54 AM

While I am an adherent of the "winged Balrog" theory, I think that that quote in the Appendix indicates fleeing more than being winged. Though the MR one is great. :D

Attalus

11-21-2003, 03:49 PM

To me, the telling words in the quote I posted above are "arose" and "with winged speed." Strangely enough, Christopher Tolkien omitted those last three from the published Silmarillion.

Grendel

11-21-2003, 06:30 PM

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.

Dúnedain

11-21-2003, 06:37 PM

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

11-22-2003, 12:00 AM

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

11-22-2003, 01:26 AM

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

11-22-2003, 03:13 AM

"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

11-22-2003, 04:25 AM

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

11-22-2003, 07:32 AM

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

11-22-2003, 11:39 AM

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

11-22-2003, 01:49 PM

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

11-22-2003, 02:16 PM

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

11-22-2003, 02:54 PM

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

11-23-2003, 04:31 AM

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

11-23-2003, 11:38 AM

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

11-23-2003, 12:26 PM

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

11-23-2003, 01:48 PM

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

11-23-2003, 02:20 PM

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? :rolleyes: An ignorant majority is not an accurate majority.

squinteyedsoutherner

11-23-2003, 03:05 PM

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

11-23-2003, 04:06 PM

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

11-23-2003, 04:11 PM

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 :rolleyes:

Dúnedain

11-23-2003, 04:21 PM

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

11-23-2003, 05:18 PM

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?

Dúnedain

11-23-2003, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Grendel
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.

Ummmm no it doesn't. It shows that regardless of their position that they DON'T KNOW. Their position doesn't mean anything, because they end the article by saying they don't know, but nice try...

Dúnedain

11-23-2003, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Grendel
And what he said is that they are basically no greater than man-sized.

I love how you continue to misconstrue the facts. He actually contradicts himself.

In one passage he says "no more than man-high yet terror seemed to go before it."

And then in another he says "of man-shape, maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it." So for you to definitively say they are no greater than man-sized doesn't make sense.

He also goes on to say this "It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height...but 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." That passage doesn't sound like he is man-sized there either...

All we are saying, especially myself, is that you cannot say definitively for a fact one way or the other, because there are compelling arguements from both sides. To bring up the Encyclopedia of Arda thing is a moot point, because you can find other arguements for the other side that are just as compelling...

squinteyedsoutherner

11-23-2003, 09:46 PM

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

Huh?

Winged speed is an expression used most often for swift flight with wings. That is a fact you are choosing to ignore.

Someone post a Tolkien passage where a land-bound creature “arises to pass with winged speed over" something.
Until then........................I just can't take this seriously.

later,

cian

11-24-2003, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner: Huh? Winged speed is an expression used most often for swift flight with wings. That is a fact you are choosing to ignore.

Thus can my love excuse the slow offence
Of my dull bearer when from thee I speed:
From where thou art why should I haste me thence?
Till I return, of posting is no need.
O! what excuse will my poor beast then find,
When swift extremity can seem but slow?
Then should I spur, though mounted on the wind,
In winged speed no motion shall I know,
Then can no horse with my desire keep pace;
Therefore desire, of perfect'st love being made,
Shall neigh--no dull flesh--in his fiery race;
But love, for love, thus shall excuse my jade,--
'Since from thee going, he went wilful-slow,
Towards thee I'll run, and give him leave to go.'

William Shakespeare, Sonnet 51

My beautiful! my beautiful! that standest meekly by.
With thy proudly-arched and glossy neck, and dark and fiery eye!
Fret not to roam the desert now with all thy winged speed:
I may not mount on thee again - thou'rt sold, my Arab steed!

Caroline Norton's The Arab's Farewell to his Steed

No princess, veil'd in azure vest,
Snatched him, by Merlin's potent spell,
In groves of golden bliss to dwell;
Where, crown'd with wreaths of misletoe,
Slaughter'd kings in glory go:
But when he fell, with winged speed,
His champions, on a milk-white steed,
From the battle's hurricane,
Bore him to Joseph's towered fane,
In the fair vale of Avalon:

Thomas Warton's The Grave of King Arthur

"The king is on the waves!
The storm he boldly braves.
His ocean-steed,
With winged speed,
O'er the white-flashing surges,
To England's coast he urges;
And there he stays the winter o'er:
More gallant king ne'er trod that shore."

translation of the Saga of Sigurd the Crusader

For examples.

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner: Someone post a Tolkien passage where a land-bound creature “arises to pass with winged speed over" something. Until then ........................ I just can't take this seriously.

Or post a Tolkien passage where it's stated that Balrogs have physical, permanent wings like that of a bat or a bird or similar.

¤

Dúnedain

11-24-2003, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by cian
Or post a Tolkien passage where Tolkien states that Balrogs have physical, permanent wings like that of a bat or a bird or similar. Use all of HOME, Letters ... any source you know of to date.

The thing is he never gave a real concise definitive description of Balrogs one way or the other...

cian

11-24-2003, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by Dúnedain
The thing is he never gave a real concise definitive description of Balrogs one way or the other...

You seem to be saying that you don't know if Balrogs have permanent flesh-type wings or not -- regarding the FOTR quote, one might assume Balrogs have 'vast' bat wings (or similar), based however, on a passage that doesn't necessarily tell us any more than the Moria Balrog had 'wings' because its shadow (at one point) reached out like wings.

'Over the land there lies a long shadow,
westward reaching wings of darkness.'~ ROTK

¤

Dúnedain

11-24-2003, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by cian
You seem to be saying that you don't know if Balrogs have permanent flesh-type wings or not -- so one must assume Balrogs have 'vast' bat wings (or similar) based on a passage that doesn't necessarily tell us any more than the Moria Balrog had 'wings' because its shadow (at one point) reached out like wings.

'Over the land there lies a long shadow,
westward reaching wings of darkness.'~ ROTK

¤

No, what I said was, he doesn't describe hardly anything about Balrogs, he even contradicts himself on a number of occassions about it's size and stature...

cian

11-24-2003, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by Dúnedain
No, what I said was, he doesn't describe hardly anything about Balrogs, he even contradicts himself on a number of occassions about it's size and stature...

Thus, you don't know whether Balrogs have vast, permanent bat wings. Do you believe they do? if so why? the Moria passage doesn't say they do in any case.

¤

Dúnedain

11-24-2003, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by cian
Thus, you don't know whether Balrogs have vast, permanent bat wings. Do you believe they do? if so why? the Moria passage doesn't say they do in any case.

¤

I am really in the middle on it, but lean more towards that they did have wings, however I like keeping it open to the chance they didn't. You speak of the Moria passage, but they thing is, it doesn't say they don't have them either, ya know? It does mention them, whether it be through metaphor or simile or what-have-you...

Dúnedain

11-24-2003, 01:12 AM

Here is a cool article written by Michael Martinez, who has written extensively on Tolkien's works...

The Lord of the Rings
Do Balrogs have wings? Do Balrogs fly?

No questions seem to incite greater fear in online Tolkien fandom than these two, because the Great Balrog wings debate began innocently enough in late 1997 and has raged ever since, each time someone just discovers a new discussion group, or they work up their courage to ask the question again and again. Why the great fear? Because few people ever give in and change their minds. And those who do change their minds may do so more than once. The Balrog wings debate has led to a great deal of name-calling and casting of slurs. It all becomes very childish too quickly.

And, unfortunately, recent efforts to portray the debate in a "fair" and non-judgmental way have been spectacular failures because the third-parties don't present all the facts. It is difficult to condense a discussion which roars over 2 or 3 weeks before dying down to a concise summary. It is difficult to be sure of which points are proven and which are discarded. The Great Metaphor and Simile debate arose out of the Great Balrog wings debate, and if nothing else provided much evidence that people cannot agree on anything. Many who had stood firmly together on the wings issue fell to bickering over what constituted metaphor and simile, and how they are normally used, and how they should be used, and how J.R.R. Tolkien used them.

This page is concerned only with the original questions. Did Balrogs have wings? Did Balrogs fly? And the answers are...

Yes, Balrogs had wings...from about 1940 onward.

Yes, Balrogs flew...from at least 1940 onward, maybe from 1948 onward, or possibly from 1952 or thereabouts onward.

The Origins of Balrogs
Tolkien used the word "Balrog" to describe a terrifying type of warrior he invented for THE BOOK OF LOST TALES, the first story of which was written in 1916/1917. This was "The Fall of Gondolin". There were hundreds or even thousands of them. In some battle descriptions Tolkien wrote about 1,000 Balrogs riding across the field (they were a cavalry force).

THE BOOK OF LOST TALES was Tolkien's attempt to create a mythology for England, and he abandoned the project in 1925, about the time he decided to create a wholly new mythology which reused the themes and many characters from THE BOOK OF LOST TALES. So this new mythology, which he called the "Silmarillion", was a very primitive version of the collection of stories Christopher published as THE SILMARILLION in 1977, but it wasn't directly related.

The "Silmarillion" mythology retained the Balrogs, and in the 1930s Tolkien rewrote it, producing the fullest version of "Quenta Silmarillion" that he would ever write. Christopher actually used some portions of this text for the book, and that unfortunately has contributed to the confusion many people experience about Balrogs.

A New Balrog Emerges
When Tolkien began work on THE LORD OF THE RINGS he really wanted to get his "Silmarillion" published (now conceived of as THE SILMARILLION, but still only very little in concept like the final book). He had no real inclination to write any more books about hobbits, but as he got rolling on the new hobbit story the idea of marrying the world of the hobbits to the world of the "Silmarillion" appealed to him, and he believed it would eventually help him publish THE SILMARILLION.

So Tolkien began creating what we today know as Middle-earth (it did not exist before then, and Tolkien had only rarely used the name "Middle-earth" in the 1930s, and it does not appear in any published text from before the 1930s). As part of that world he needed a series of perils that Frodo and his companions would encounter, and one of them was set in the ancient mines of Moria, which THE HOBBIT had established was now abandoned and in the possession of Orcs (or had been).

The peril in Moria started out as something other than a Balrog (Tolkien wasn't sure of what it should be at first), and when he decided it SHOULD be a Balrog he became dissatisfied with the way he had portrayed Balrogs in the past. Tolkien had already begun the process of transforming the Balrogs into fallen Maiar but this decision would not be put into written form until 1948. Nonetheless, he changed the physical description of the Balrog in Moria and altered its abilities substantially from those assigned to the Balrogs of earlier (now abandoned) stories.

This Balrog had wings, and was capable of exercising great power, and was nearly invincible. The Balrog detected Gandalf's spell as he tried to block the exit from the Chamber of Mazarbul, and the Balrog itself began a counter-spell, according to Gandalf. So the wizard used a Word of Command to break the down, and the result was a partial cave-in which buried the Chamber of Mazarbul and apparently the Balrog with it.

continued....

Dúnedain

11-24-2003, 01:14 AM

...continued

The Balrog survived the cave-in and rejoined its army, which converged with the Company of the Ring in the Second Hall of Khazad-dum by an alternate route. There the Balrog revealed itself fully, and the darkness with which it cloaked itself expanded. The wings were either shielded by the darkness or formed by the Balrog on the spot or else the darkness (or part of the darkness) was reshaped by the Balrog to take on the form of wings (and thus BECAME wings).

Objections to Balrog wings
Here is where many people make their first mistake. 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". If Tolkien's use of the word "like" here means that there were no wings, then it follows that there was no shadow, and if there was no shadow then it could not possibly have "reached out like two vast wings".

So, in order for there to be a shadow there must be wings, because later on Tolkien writes "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." The Company of the Ring clearly saw the wings by this point, and what Tolkien was doing with the two similes (and other parts of the passage) was providing a transition from vagueness to clarity. Nothing more.

Objections to Flying Balrogs
People then ask, "Why didn't the Balrog fly over Gandalf if it could fly?"

The answer is that the author gives no indication that the Balrog wanted to do anything other than attack Gandalf. It never once tries to go after Frodo and the Ring. Many people assume it wanted the Ring, but there is no basis for making such an assumption. The closest indication we have that anything other than Sauron and Saruman might have been actively pursuing the Ring is when the Watcher in the Water grabs Frodo. But there is no obvious connection between the Watcher and the Balrog.

And if the Balrog COULD have flown with those big cavern-spanning wings, how was it to do so inside the Second Hall of Khazad-dum anyway? There were two rows of HUGE carven pillars, reaching from floor to ceiling, marching down the center of the hall. The Balrog could not have flown toward the Company of the Ring with those wings fully extended.

Then people ask, "Well, why didn't it try to save itself when it fell into the chasm?"

The answer here begins with another question: "Why should we assume it would want to save itself?" The Balrog had just crawled out from under tons of rock which would have killed Gandalf, Aragorn, Boromir, and all the rest of the Company. What, exactly, did it have to fear? Why should it have tried to "save" itself when the author has just shown the reader that Balrogs don't die so easily?

Furthermore, the first thing the Balrog does is lash out at Gandalf and drag him downward. Clearly its foremost thought is to continue the attack on Gandalf. Even if there were room in the chasm for the Balrog to fly out, why should it drag Gandalf down with it if it intends to get out of the chasm anyway? Why not just "save" itself and let him fall with the bridge? Because Tolkien didn't write it that way. Obviously he envisioned the Balrog as an active creature, not a reactive one.

Gandalf's description of the battle with the Balrog also makes it clear that they fought all the way down, and that they fell for a long time. So the Balrog was at the very least encumbered with Gandalf and more likely was actively trying to burn him to death (Gandalf does say he was burned).

And then we have to turn to the question of why it took so long for them to reach the water. Some people have argued that it was a LONG way down. Maybe, but if Tolkien knew anything about the rate of falling bodies (and he probably did), then he would understand that Gandalf's words wouldn't make any sense if the wizard and the Balrog really fell at a normal speed.

So it seems apparent that their rate of descent was slowed, probably by the Balrog, but clearly these were both beings of great power who, if they wished to, could move through the universe at will. Their existence and ability to affect the universe did not depend on their physical bodies (although it has been noted that late in his life Tolkien decided many of the fallen Maiar probably became trapped in their bodies due to engaging in biological activities).

continued...

Dúnedain

11-24-2003, 01:16 AM

...continued

Hence, there is little reason to ask why the Balrog didn't fly out of the chasm. It obviously had other things on its mind, and the battle Gandalf describes is not the kind of battle that any normal flesh-and-blood creature would be expected to survive (and he himself was not a normal flesh-and-blood creature). The battle lasted for 11 days, and it culminated with the clash of powers on the mountaintop.

Could a Flying Balrog Save Itself?
There one more objection is raised: "Why didn't the Balrog save itself when it fell from the mountainside?" The answer is that dead and dying Balrogs, like dead and dying dragons, don't fly. When Earendil cast Ancalagon from the sky the dragon was finished and it smote Thangorodrim in its ruin just as the Balrog of Moria smote the mountainside in ITS ruin. And when Bard's arrow pierced Smaug's breast, the great dragon fell from the sky and hit the ruins of Laketown in HIS ruin.

Gandalf threw down his enemy. That expression is one of Tolkien's pseudo-archaisms, and clearly refers to Gandalf's vanquishing the Balrog. It was either too physically exhausted after having been whacked on with an Elvish sword and blasted with lightning bolts for 11 days or it was dead or in the process of dying when it took that fall off the cliff. If the Balrog could have acted to save itself at all by that point, it would at least have taken Gandalf with it, if not actually turn the tables on him. How many times during their 11 days together did either Gandalf or the Balrog NEARLY kill his opponent? Tolkien doesn't say. He leaves it to the reader to imagine how terrible the battle must have been. But he makes it clear that Gandalf won because the Balrog could no longer attack him.

But Can Balrogs Really fly?
Then we turn to the question of whether Balrogs really CAN fly. The short answer is that they were Maiar and that Maiar can whatever they please. The long answer is that Tolkien DOES provide one example of flying Balrogs, and that is when they flew over Hithlum to rescue Morgoth from Ungoliant.

Here many people raise objections by dissecting a single sentence and taking specific phrases out of context. "winged speed", they say, can be used as a metaphor. Yes, it can, but there is no indication in the text that Tolkien used it so. "Arose", they say, can refer to the act of flying up into the sky or simply climbing out of an underground abode, and the Balrogs were indeed underground when they heard Morgoth scream. Yes, that is so. But there is no indication in the text that this is what Tolkien meant to imply without also implying flight.

"Passed over" doesn't necessarily mean flight, either, they say. Fingolfin's horse passed over the plain of Anfauglith after the Dagor Bragollach, and the horse obviously was not flying. True, but "passed over" must be given a context to have any meaning.

What J.R.R. Tolkien actually wrote was "swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum, they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire." Unfortunately, only part of this text was used by Christopher Tolkien in THE SILMARILLION. What he wrote "and now swiftly they arose, and passing over Hithlum they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire."

Why did Christopher change the text? He doesn't say. It may only have been an error of omission. But it's not simply a matter of omission, he changed the verbal phrasing completely from "they passed with winged speed over Hithlum" to "passing over Hithlum".

The key phrase in both versions of the sentence, however, is the metaphor "tempest of fire". A tempest is a storm. Some people have argued that a tempest can simply refer to a disturbance, but Tolkien doesn't use "tempest" that way. He uses it to refer to things coming out of the sky. When Morgoth unleashed the winged dragons on the Host of the Valar at the end of the War of Wrath, they erupted like a "tempest of fire". Clearly the winged dragons were flying and spewing flames.

Tolkien's "tempest of fire" in Lammoth dates from the 1950s, AFTER Tolkien had reached the conclusion that Balrogs were winged fallen Maiar. Furthermore, it works with "swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum" to denote a passage through the sky. There were Elves in Hithlum at the time (Sindar) who noted this passage (that is how Tolkien justifies his histories -- either someone witnesses it or infers it). Hithlum itself was not burned, nor suffered any kind of damage from flame and smoke. Tolkien doesn't say the flaming Balrogs ran through Hithlum, and they in their fiery state could not have ridden through it as in the older stories.

continued...

Dúnedain

11-24-2003, 01:18 AM

...continued

Some people nonetheless argue that these are only words, and that it can be shown they mean something other than flight. However, when I have asked people in many forums to try, no one has succeeded. You must use all four parts of the sentence. You cannot drop any part. It is simply not possible to rewrite the sentence so as to show something other than flight. Hence, there is no ambiguity in the passage concerning the Balrogs' mode of travel.

Glaurung's Train of Balrogs
But one last objection is raised, and that is that in describing the Dagor Bragollach, THE SILMARILLION says "in the front of that fire came Glaurung the golden, father of dragons, in his full might; and in his train were Balrogs, and behind them came the black armies of the Orcs in multitudes such as the Noldor had never before seen or imagined."

One must ask where this sentence comes from, and the answer is surprising to many. It doesn't come from J.R.R. Tolkien. What JRRT actually wrote, in the last full "Quenta Silmarillion" from the 1930s, was "in the front of that fire came Glomund the golden, the father of dragons, and in his train were Balrogs, and behind them came the black armies of the Orcs in multitudes such as the Gnomes had never before seen or imagined."

These Balrogs were not the flaming, cloaked-in-shadow, wing-bearing, flying Balrogs of the 1940s and 1950s. In the same text, when Tolkien described the fight between Morgoth and Ungoliant, all he wrote was "so great had Ungoliante become that she enmeshed Morgoth in her choking nets, and his awful cry echoed through the shuddering world. To his aid there came the Balrogs that lived yet in the deepest places of his ancient fortress, Utumno in the North. With their whips of flame the Balrogs smote the webs asunder...."

No mention of passing over Hithlum, swiftly arising, or arriving as a tempest of fire here. These were not fiery flying Balrogs. These are still the mounted Balrogs of yesteryear. In the same "Quenta Silmarillion" text, when describing the Nirnaeth, Tolkien wrote "But even as the vanguard of Maedhros came upon the Orcs, Morgoth let loose his last strength, and hell was emptied. There came wolves and serpents, and there came Balrogs one thousand, and there came Glomund the Father of Dragons." The number of 1,000 Balrogs survived into the 1950s, but Tolkien soon made a note to himself in "Annals of Aman" that there should not be more than 7 at most.

In describing the outcome of the War of Wrath in this "Quenta Silmarillion", Tolkien wrote "the Balrogs were destroyed, save some few that fled and hid themselves in caverns inaccessible at the roots of the earth." This is the language that Christopher incorporated into the published SILMARILLION, because his father never finished rewriting "Quenta Silmarillion". Christopher adopted as much material as he could from "Annals of Aman" and "Grey Annals", but the latter material covered the history of the Eldar in Middle-earth after the return of the Noldor and it was unsuitable for use in the published text.

The entry in "Grey Annals" which describes the Dagor Bragollach is radically different from the 1930s description which Christopher used, reading, in part, "Rivers of fire ran down from Thangorodrim, and Glaurung, Father of Dragons, came forth in his full might. The green plains of Ardgalen were burned up and became a drear desert without growing thing; and thereafter were called ANFAUGLITH, the Gasping Dust."

continued...

Dúnedain

11-24-2003, 01:20 AM

...continued

Gone is all mention of Balrogs in the dragon's train.

The Final Word on Balrogs
Tolkien never again wrote a story about Balrogs. What we find in THE SILMARILLION, therefore, is virtually useless information, amalgamated from older, pre-LOTR (and thus incompatible) sources. And Tolkien fans often forget Christopher's admonishment in the foreword to THE SILMARILLION: "A complete consistency (either within the compass of THE SILMARILLION itself or between THE SILMARILLION and other published writings of my father's) is not to be looked for, and could only be achieved, if at all, at heavy and needless cost."

So, to learn about the nature and abilities of the Balrog of Moria one must dissect the various texts of THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH, and the stories from THE BOOK OF LOST TALES and other pre-LOTR materials cannot be used to analyze the Balrog of Moria. Many people try to do so, but because Tolkien substantially changed the Balrogs while writing "Ainulindale" and THE LORD OF THE RINGS, the Balrogs of THE BOOK OF LOST TALES and the early "Quenta Silmarillion" are completely different creatures.

In the final analysis, one must accept that the Balrog of Moria had wings because J.R.R. Tolkien said it had wings, and that the Balrogs flew to Lammoth because the sentence cannot mean anything else. If one chooses not to accept these facts, then one is at variance with J.R.R. Tolkien, and there is nothing which can be said or done to counter an argument that refuses to accept the plain and simple facts.

I guess this could be used as the counter to the Encyclopedia of Arda article, but still, either way, there are a lot of points to be made on both sides :D

cian

11-24-2003, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by Dúnedain
I am really in the middle on it, but lean more towards that they did have wings, however I like keeping it open to the chance they didn't. You speak of the Moria passage, but they thing is, it doesn't say they don't have them either, ya know? It does mention them, whether it be through metaphor or simile or what-have-you...

That Tolkien doesn't say a thing doesn't have wings doesn't mean a thing does ;)

The Moria passage does not mention physical permanent wings, or describe them specifically -- the word 'wings' appears in a description there rather. Consider quotes from Tal-Elmar

'... for the Sea-men spread great cloths like wings to catch the airs, and bind them to tall poles like trees of the forest.' ~ JRRT

Later on in the passage:

'... and ever one of the accursed ships hath black wings.' ~JRRT

Still later:

'The foul wings of the Sea-men have not been seen in these waters for many a year; ...' ~JRRT

¤

cian

11-24-2003, 01:34 AM

I've read Michael's essay :)

Incidentally Michael has elsewhere stated that the wings could be made of 'Shadow-stuff'.

And the sentence in the Lammoth passage can easily refer to non flying creatures. For example horses can 'arise' from somewhere, and pass over a land (with winged speed) and arrive somewhere like a tempest.

¤

Dúnedain

11-24-2003, 01:45 AM

Check this out, this is from The Fellowship of the Ring:

The Fellowship of the Ring; The Great River p. 378:

'Elbereth Gilthoniel!' sighed Legolas as he looked up. Even as he did so, a dark shape, like a cloud and yet not a cloud, for it moved far more swiftly, came out of the blackness in the South, and sped towards the Company, blotting out all light as it approached. Soon it appeared as a great winged creature, blacker than the pits in the night. Fierce voices rose up to greet it from across the water. Frodo felt a sudden chill running through him and clutching at his heart; there was a deadly cold, like the memory of an old wound, in his shoulder. He crouched down, as if to hide.

Suddenly the great bow of Lórien sang. Shrill went the arrow from the elven-string. Frodo looked up. Almost above him the winged shape swerved. There was a harsh croaking scream, as it fell out of the air, vanishing down into the gloom of the eastern shore. The sky was clean again. There was a tumult of many voices far away, cursing and wailing in the darkness, and then silence. Neither shaft nor cry came again from the east that night.

After a while Aragorn led the boats back upstream. They felt their way along the water's edge for some distance, until they found a small shallow bay. A few low trees grew there close to the water, and behind them rose a steep rocky bank. Here the Company decided to stay and await the dawn: it was useless to attempt to move further by night. They made no camp and lit no fire, but lay huddled in the boats, moored close together.

'Praised be the bow of Galadriel, and the hand and eye of Legolas!' said Gimli, as he munched a wafer of lembas. 'That was a mighty shot in the dark, my friend!'

'But who can say what it hit?' said Legolas.

'I cannot,' said Gimli. 'But I am glad that the shadow came no nearer. I liked it not at all. Too much it reminded me of the shadow in Moria - the shadow of the Balrog,' he ended in a whisper.

'It was not a Balrog,' said Frodo, still shivering with the chill that had come upon him. 'It was something colder. I think it was -----' Then he paused and fell silent.

You can be the judge of this passage yourself :D

cian

11-24-2003, 02:01 AM

I note Frodo is talking about feel there, it was 'colder' ... and in any case, if the Balrog had a shadow, or Unlight about it, that reached out like vast wings at one point -- it would arguaby look like a creature with vast wings.

I 'picture' a creature with vast 'wings' during the confrontation in Moria. Not permanent vast bat or bird wings though -- I'll wait to see if Tolkien ever describes 'wings' in that sense :)

¤

cian

11-24-2003, 08:56 AM

Incidentally, for folks quoting the Michael Martinez article, please also note Michael's comments regarding what the 'wings' were possibly made of -- for full context to any existing commentary I suggest searching google 'shadow stuff' on the Tolkien newsgroups.

¤

squinteyedsoutherner

11-24-2003, 10:21 AM

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).

Michael’s analysis of the bridge passage in Lord of the Rings and the “evolution” of the Balrog in Tolkien’s mythology sholud be the final word on this, somehow I have a feeling it won't be.

Sign me up for wings made of shadow.

cian

11-24-2003, 01:36 PM

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

11-24-2003, 02:00 PM

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 (tolkien.slimy.com/essays/TAB6.html)

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

Grendel

11-25-2003, 02:32 AM

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

11-25-2003, 06:54 AM

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

11-25-2003, 10:16 AM

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

11-25-2003, 01:14 PM

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

11-25-2003, 01:37 PM

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

11-25-2003, 03:17 PM

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

11-25-2003, 03:23 PM

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 :p

azalea

11-25-2003, 03:27 PM

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

11-26-2003, 10:06 AM

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. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Grendel

11-26-2003, 10:20 AM

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

11-26-2003, 11:59 AM

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

11-26-2003, 01:07 PM

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

Grendel

11-26-2003, 01:54 PM

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

11-26-2003, 03:13 PM

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. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Wouldn't I know my own opinions best? :rolleyes:

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

Attalus

11-26-2003, 03:39 PM

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

BeardofPants

11-26-2003, 04:21 PM

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

11-26-2003, 06:56 PM

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

11-29-2003, 06:07 PM

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.

Ruinel

12-06-2003, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by afro-elf
yes the ONE WING BALROG :)

it beats the 5 ass monkey from South park :) First off, how do you know it will beat the 5 ass monkey from Southpark. Perhaps if we can set up a grudge match going between them and sell some tickets we could find out for sure one way or another. Ooooh.. I want the rights to consessions. :) Lembas anyone? ;)

Twista

03-11-2004, 02:53 PM

I think this the Balrogs Wings topic. thought id bring it up ! :)

Bombadillo

03-22-2004, 12:43 AM

Good. I feel like mindlessly arguing. I encourage others to mindlessly flame me.

Look what I came across, all by myself:
Something was coming up behind them. What it was could not be seen: it like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, a man-shape maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it.

It came to the edge of the fire and the light faded as if a cloud had bent over it. Then with a rush it leaped across the fissure. The flames roared up to greet it, and wreathed about it; and a black smoke swirled in the air. Its streaming mane kindled, and blazed behind it. In its right hand was a blade like a stabbing tongue of fire; in its left it held a whip of many thongs. This describes the whole balrog, and it states that the entire body was only like a cloud, and not appearing to be anything tangible. It and even its sword was only smoke, or maybe fear, but nothing concrete. So why should its wings be solid and real?
Notice also, how in this introductory description, there is no mention of wings at all. So I will take it a step further: the Balrog never had wings of any sort, or Tolkien certainly would have told us here.

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

'You cannot pass,' he said. The orcs stood still, and a dead silence fell. "I am a servant of the Secret Firse, weilder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass.'

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. Notice how little was written between bold sentence and bold sentence. After only one paragraph, the reader should remember clearly the words in the first. The second time Tolkien mentions wings, it is a metaphor. It is a direct reference back to the simile two pragraphs before, and its meaning is the same as that simile: its shadow, cast in two directions by the fire directly below and behind it, looked frighteningly like wings. But that is only its shadow.
Similarly, if I were to play with my hand in front of a light and say "Look at the monkey on the wall," it does not mean that my hand is a monkey. (And I assure you it is not.) But the shadow looks like a monkey's sillouette. And the Balrog's shadow looks like wings, but solid wings, or even smokey ones, do not excist.

BeardofPants

03-22-2004, 03:08 AM

*smacks Bomb with an extremely smelly fish*

And I'm sure that particular detail probably exists countless times, in countless threads, all across the universe. :p

*runs off with his pants, AND the balrogs* heh heh heh... :evil:

brownjenkins

03-22-2004, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Bombadillo
Similarly, if I were to play with my hand in front of a light and say "Look at the monkey on the wall," it does not mean that my hand is a monkey. (And I assure you it is not.) But the shadow looks like a monkey's sillouette. And the Balrog's shadow looks like wings, but solid wings, or even smokey ones, do not excist.

your hand may not be a monkey, but the shadow is... you said so yourself! ;)

what' wrong with shadowy wings? are they any less real?

you said...

This describes the whole balrog, and it states that the entire body was only like a cloud, and not appearing to be anything tangible. It and even its sword was only smoke, or maybe fear, but nothing concrete. So why should its wings be solid and real?

so by your shadow-logic, one would have to assume that the balrog itself did not exist... if only gandalf knew! ;)

Bombadillo

03-22-2004, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by BeardofPants
*smacks Bomb with an extremely smelly fish*

And I'm sure that particular detail probably exists countless times, in countless threads, all across the universe. :p

*runs off with his pants, AND the balrogs* heh heh heh... :evil: AND the balrogs!? Now I stink and am cold with no firey balrog to warm me! *chases after BoP, but can't see without the balrog flame to light things up.*

Originally posted by brownjenkins
your hand may not be a monkey, but the shadow is... you said so yourself! ;)

what' wrong with shadowy wings? are they any less real?
---- ---- ---- ----
so by your shadow-logic, one would have to assume that the balrog itself did not exist... if only gandalf knew! ;) It didn't excist, in a way. :p :rolleyes: It was not part of the physical realm. (Meybe it's whip was. Yes, Gandalf only knew for sure.)

Bombadillo

03-22-2004, 11:30 PM

The word "shadow" is being interpereted different ways here. I mean, and I think Tolkien meant, the actual normal old shadows that were cast on the walls by the balrog's light. I think you are imagining some floating darkness, like smoke. I don't think that would be possible because of the way it seemingly ignited itself while jumping over the fire (in the first quote there). The wings, if they existed, would have been on fire also. Unless they actually were smoke, but they were present before the flames, and so that would not be possible as smoke cannot excist without fire.

brownjenkins

03-22-2004, 11:49 PM

and what cast those wing-like shadows? ;)

cassiopeia

03-23-2004, 07:39 PM

*yawn* Balrogs don't have wings. Plus, don't you want to pick on Peter Jackson for something else he got wrong? ;) :D

Sorry, I know this is the book thread, but I couldn't help myself. :)

brownjenkins

03-24-2004, 10:51 AM

Thorin II

04-30-2004, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by cassiopeia
*yawn* Balrogs don't have wings. Plus, don't you want to pick on Peter Jackson for something else he got wrong? ;) :D

Sorry, I know this is the book thread, but I couldn't help myself. :)

I don't share the common detest for PJ, but I agree he got this one wrong. I read a note from JRRT somewhere (probably letters) where he said the Balrog was larger than a man, but not enormously so.

Valarauko5

02-25-2009, 05:44 AM

I hardly dare to write here as a newbie fearing the wrath of some of you, but I might just try and put this to rest, being a "balrog" myself.:cool::D I've looked at a lot of sites, and I've read the areas in the Sil and the Fellowship. I agree with some people that, from a purely reading/enjoyment standpoint, it only really matters what you want them to look like. But in essence, the Sil says that the Maia also had the power to change form at will. Since a Valarauco is a Maia, it seems that as it says in the Fellowship "It drew itself up to a great height....it's wings were spread from wall to wall" that they could stay man size if need be, but being Maia, could also become larger and more terrible. And thus could also have wings if necessary. In answer to the common problem of "well how did it fall from the bridge then if it could fly" well, when I get bored of my flamy shape, it takes a good chunk of power and some time. The things sword, which it would seem is created by it's power of flame, was thrown up in shards and it seems Gandalf prevented it from somehow getting another, otherwise it would just have reformed it. Thus the Valarauco had neither time nor power to spare. I don't really know why people WOULDN'T want a Balrog to have wings. Doesn't it look cooler that way? Please tell me what you think.

DARKastheRAIN

02-25-2009, 01:56 PM

Why is it that no one ever thought to ask Tolkien if Balrogs had wings when he was still alive?

Jonathan

02-25-2009, 03:33 PM

But in essence, the Sil says that the Maia also had the power to change form at will. Since a Valarauco is a Maia, it seems that as it says in the Fellowship "It drew itself up to a great height....it's wings were spread from wall to wall" that they could stay man size if need be, but being Maia, could also become larger and more terrible. And thus could also have wings if necessary.The Encyclopedia of Arda provides a rather comprehensive article (http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/faq/shapeshifting.html) on the Balrogs' shapeshifting abilities and acknowledges that there is no definite answer.

Amongst other things, one can read:
" To complicate matters, it isn't clear that Tolkien considered Balrogs to be Maiar at the time he wrote this passage. In his original conception, he saw Balrogs as creatures created by Morgoth, and not Maiar at all. The first references to their later origin as Maiar appear in texts from the 1950's, dated ten years or more after the Balrog descriptions in The Lord of the Rings were written. It's impossible to know for sure whether the Balrog of Khazad-dûm, as Tolkien imagined it at the time, was a Maia or not. Indeed, the fact that it is twice referred to as a 'Balrog of Morgoth' hints that Tolkien imagined it as Morgoth's creation, rather than his ally. "

Attalus

02-25-2009, 07:32 PM

I am on record as saying that Balrogs could look like anything they darned well pleased. What are Balrogs made of, anyhow? Certainly not bone and sinew. Probably some divine (or demonic) ichor that made shape-changing a breeze.

Coffeehouse

02-25-2009, 07:59 PM

Yeah, perhaps they can. I happened to like the movie-version. Looked ancient without coming of as too cartoonish:cool:

Gordis

02-25-2009, 08:34 PM

I agree that the Balrog had not yet lost his/her shape-shifting ability.

The shape-shifting Maiar were not necessarily made of ichor - Sauron back in the First Age had this ability, yet he was of flesh and blood: Huan wounded him in a hound form and the bat-form he used to fly away still had blood dripping, IIRC.

Valarauko5

02-26-2009, 02:33 AM

The Encyclopedia of Arda provides a rather comprehensive article (http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/faq/shapeshifting.html) on the Balrogs' shapeshifting abilities and acknowledges that there is no definite answer.
"[/I]

Yes, but firstly the encyclopedia of Arda is far from comprehensive in and of itself. And secondly, just because it's referred to as Morgoth's doesn't mean that it was his creation.:rolleyes: They were his servants, just as Sauron was his servant. Does that imply that Sauron was Morgoth's creation? Just for the record yes it's possible, and the encyclopedia is ok for some things, just not everything.:)

Besides. I'm a Balrog. I should know. ;):D

Valarauko5

02-26-2009, 02:48 AM

" To complicate matters, it isn't clear that Tolkien considered Balrogs to be Maiar at the time he wrote this passage.
"

This is a perfect example of how bad the encyclopedia can be. The Book specifically states that "it was man-sized......" and "It drew itself up to a great height" Doesn't that sound like it could change shape to anyone but me?

Valarauko5

02-26-2009, 04:09 AM

Here's another great contradictory on Balrogs in the encyclopedia. Under Durin's Bane it has "In January III 3019, the Company of the Ring travelled through Moria on the Quest of Mount Doom. In Gandalf, the Balrog finally encountered a being of the same order and power as itself. As the two Maiar faced each other on the Bridge of Khazad-dûm,..." Which implies that the encyclopedia thinks they are both Maiar. Isn't that great?

Gordis

02-26-2009, 06:44 AM

I shall give you a good advice, Valarauko. :) Forget all encyclopedia - use LOTR text to draw conclusions.

And in the text there is Gandalf's account of the fight in the abyss and later upon Zirakzigil:

'Deep is , and none has measured it,' said Gimli.
'Yet [the abyss] has a bottom, beyond light and knowledge,' said Gandalf. 'Thither I came at last, to the uttermost foundations of stone. He was with me still. His fire was quenched, but now he was a thing of slime, stronger than a strangling snake.
'We fought far under the living earth, where time is not counted. Ever he clutched me, and ever I hewed him, till at last he fled into dark tunnels. [...]
'There upon Celebdil was a lonely window in the snow, and before it lay a narrow space, a dizzy eyrie above the mists of the world. The sun shone fiercely there, but all below was wrapped in cloud. Out he sprang, and even as I came behind, he burst into new flame.
It sounds very much like shape-shifting to me. A thing of fire and shadow became a thing of slime (to adjust to the surroundings), and then turned back again into the thing of fire.

Jonathan

02-26-2009, 01:52 PM

Yes, but firstly the encyclopedia of Arda is far from comprehensive in and of itself. And secondly, just because it's referred to as Morgoth's doesn't mean that it was his creation.:rolleyes:Oh, I disagree. While maybe the entries in the Encyclopedia might vary in quality, I think the complementing articles about the Balrogs covers a lot of the different views and interpretations that exist. There is discussion without taking sides. Indeed, as for your second remark, there is no claiming that Balrogs were Morgoth's creations but simply that they could be.

This is a perfect example of how bad the encyclopedia can be. The Book specifically states that "it was man-sized......" and "It drew itself up to a great height" Doesn't that sound like it could change shape to anyone but me?The article I linked to in my previous post addresses this point. Did you read all of it? It proposes that while these passages could of course suggest genuine shape-shifting, they could also refer to the mysterious "shadow" that the Balrogs (albeit man-like in size) were supposedly swathed in. A lot of what some people interprets as shape-shifting, could very well be considered the works of the Balrog's "shadow" by others. Here's the article again: On Balrog shape-shifting (http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/faq/shapeshifting.html)

Here's another great contradictory on Balrogs in the encyclopedia. Under Durin's Bane it has "In January III 3019, the Company of the Ring travelled through Moria on the Quest of Mount Doom. In Gandalf, the Balrog finally encountered a being of the same order and power as itself. As the two Maiar faced each other on the Bridge of Khazad-dûm,..." Which implies that the encyclopedia thinks they are both Maiar. Isn't that great?There is no contradiction. The Encyclopedia clearly considers the Balrogs to be Maiar, but questions whether Tolkien himself considered them Maiar when he wrote that very passage of LotR. In any case, he clearly thought of them as corrupted Maiar later on.

The Dread Pirate Roberts

02-26-2009, 01:56 PM

Assuming this shape-shifting theory is correct, why fall at all? Anyone see the trailer for the new Ice Age movie? If not, go do that before reading further.

Ice Age Trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/iceagedawnofthedinosaurs/large_t.html)

Go ahead. I'll wait.

Ok, now replace the two squirrels with Gandalf and a shape-shifting Balrog.

Valarauko5

02-27-2009, 06:03 AM

Just for the record, that is the best scrat video I think I've ever seen.

And Jonathan, you quoted the article earlier that specifically says it's unclear as to if the Balrog is intended to be a Maia in the books. That's why I pointed out that the encyclopedia also says in one place that they definitely are. Gordis is right. The encyclopedia really isn't that good for this stuff. And are you really going to try and convince me that a "thing of slime" is somehow it's shadow making it scarier.

Nice Idea Dread Pirate, but the Balrog wasn't necessarily trying to get away, and Gandalf could probably fly if he wanted to. So imagine both squirrels were flying squirrels, what then?

P.S. Thanks Gordis. I hadn't remembered that part in the Two Towers.

Valarauko5

02-27-2009, 06:05 AM

And for the record this is great. I'm glad we're actually discussing this reasonably instead of getting into how english writing really works. This makes much more sense guys, thank you. :):):)

Jonathan

02-27-2009, 02:17 PM

Well, are you trying to convince me that a "thing of slime" couldn't just be a Balrog's natural appearance, once its fire is quenched? :)

Valarauko5

02-27-2009, 05:30 PM

Well, yes I am.:) A creature of shadow and flame doesn't sound slimy to me, I've built plenty of camp fires in my time and when you douse them with water, they aren't slimy but more of just wet. "A thing of Slime" implies that he is now formed or is covered in a layer of the stuff to my mind. Fire and shadow just doesn't do that naturally. It would have to be him adapting to the new fighting environment. That sounds like an evil creature being clever to me, not something accidental.:p:D

Valarauko5

02-27-2009, 05:31 PM

To be precise, it sounds very much like an eel of some sort, a good form for fighting in the water.

Jonathan

02-27-2009, 05:45 PM

I've never heard anyone compare a balrog to a campfire before :eek:
Anyway, "a thing of slime" could just as well imply that he's normally just really oily under all the fire. And we all know how combustible oil can be :p

Valarauko5

02-27-2009, 05:59 PM

Now come on, us balrogs do take showers occasionally.:p:)
But sure, we're very much like a self fueling campfire. I just can't see that the water truly extinguished his flame. Remember he's MADE of flame. He has power over it. I think if he really wanted to he could have boiled the water away.:)

The Dread Pirate Roberts

02-28-2009, 12:48 PM

Nice Idea Dread Pirate, but the Balrog wasn't necessarily trying to get away, and Gandalf could probably fly if he wanted to. So imagine both squirrels were flying squirrels, what then?

That doesn't answer my question.

If the Balrog could shape-shift, why didn't he? You're a physical being in a humanoid shape and you're falling into an abyss. If you have the ability to shape-shift into anything, why would you wait until you hit the water at the bottom and then change to an eel?

And Gandalf could not fly, or more accurately there is no evidence anywhere that he could, so you can't use the possibility as a reason for the actions and abilities of others such as the balrog.

Attalus

02-28-2009, 10:09 PM

Coffeehouse

03-02-2009, 06:24 AM

Well, to start off, what shape would it change into to keep itself from falling? We know that the Balrog that Glorfindel slew couldn't save itself (pronoun used advisedly) from falling, by, say, turning itself into a ladybug. For one thing, flying requires lightness, and both Balrogs were being attacked by doughty foes that would chop a ladybug or a European land-swallow into bits. For another, even if Balrogs are assumed to have wings, flying is a complex activity, and taking off in midair while being whaled on by an angry Maia wielding a magic sword would be a feat to be talked about im many a meeting of the Utumno Reunion Society.

I agree that the Balrog most likely was not capable of flight. Though I don't know exactly what you mean by lightness. There's no inherent need for lack of mass when flying. An obvious example is a 747 passenger airliner. What is required is aerodynamic lift, to oppose the force of gravity. Sure enough, having wings isn't good enough. The wings of the Balrog, whether he had them or not, need to be able to create the lift necessary for a Balrog to cancel out his free fall.

Personally I believe the shadowy wings of the Balrog were some massive, semi-tangible dark matter related to his fiery nature, yet were completely incapable of any flight whatsoever:cool: A flightless winged Balrog, like the flightless bird on the Galapagos Islands.

The Dread Pirate Roberts

03-02-2009, 11:45 AM

Coffeehouse

03-02-2009, 12:05 PM

He needn't keep himself from falling. He only needed to slow down his descent to afford himself a measure of safety and a tactical advantage over Gandalf. I think the flying squirrel shape, or something similarly membranous, would have worked fine.

You slow your descent and follow Gandalf down to the bottom. Gandy plunges into the water and then just as he comes up for air you're on him.

All this is assuming he is both intelligent and able to shape-shift. That he didn't seem to attempt such a thing indicates to me a lack of one or the other characteristic. That other balrogs are said to have fallen to their deaths tells me it's the latter ability that they lack.

Of course the flying squirrel doesn't actually fly though, it glides eloquently through the air:) And who knows, he may have attempted it and partially succeeded with his wing-like features, but I too am sceptic to his shape-changing abilities. I think if he possessed it, they were of a very limited nature, and much more an effect of the environment than a conscious, willed adaption (see slimy shape in the water).

I think though this might be the wrong attribute to look at. Inasmuch we want to discuss its ability to adapt I would focus less on actual shape-changing of the body, and more on the seemingly elastic and highly weathered body mass instead. The Balrogs seemed to be of a very resilient fabric that look hard to break down.

Jonathan

03-02-2009, 02:02 PM

What is required is aerodynamic lift, to oppose the force of gravity. Sure enough, having wings isn't good enough. The wings of the Balrog, whether he had them or not, need to be able to create the lift necessary for a Balrog to cancel out his free fall.Though I bet that if a dragon like Smaug was capable of flying in Tolkien's world, a winged Balrog would also be.

Coffeehouse

03-02-2009, 03:09 PM

Though I bet that if a dragon like Smaug was capable of flying in Tolkien's world, a winged Balrog would also be.

Really? I can't say I'd draw that conclusion at all..

Smaug is a giant dragon, and if we judge by The Hobbit Smaug is by nature an excellent flyer whoms entire body has undergone evolutionary steps to that effect with neat, slim features and an exceptional eyesight (much like an eagle). The Balrog on the other hand, is no dragon, and neither does it seem to have much use of flying in the chasms of Moria. Here it would climb, not fly. Likewise, although I have cursory knowledge of Silmarillion, it seems the Balrog do not attack with an aereal disposition, but from the ground. Is there any textual evidence suggesting that it does that?

Jonathan

03-02-2009, 03:20 PM

Does Smaug have much use of flying in the tunnels of the Lonely Mountain? ;)

Besides, the Balrogs I envision don't have wings at all, so your question about evidence of aerial attacks bounces right off me :p

Coffeehouse

03-02-2009, 05:14 PM

Does Smaug have much use of flying in the tunnels of the Lonely Mountain? ;)

That's not really relevant. Because Smaug does not roam about inside the mountain 24/7. It is his lair and treasure room, but he frequents the wide open outside the Lonely Mountain as the dragon he is, for food and leisure and great amounts of pleasure:). And there is an important distinction in size: The Lonely Mountain is a speck of a hill compared to the immense depths beneath the Bridge of Khazad-dûm and the towering heights of the Misty Mountains. The Balrog roams the tunnels of a vast underground compared to the cramped space of the Lonely Mountain.

Besides, the Balrogs I envision don't have wings at all, so your question about evidence of aerial attacks bounces right off me :p

Lol, yeah, I guess.. but I wasn't accusing you of anything just wondering whether you had any sources to back up the notion that a Balrog would fly if Smaug could fly. But it's a bit off key really, since the difference between the Balrog and Smaug is that, as I wrote earlier, Smaug is a natural flyer with the excellent eyesight and a rather athletic body equipped with massive wings. That Smaug can fly bears no relevance to whether the Balrog can fly.

Because the Balrog seems to have a completely different physiqué. He is of fire and smoke and other burning matter, he has some sort of wings that really no one knows what consist of so we don't really know if his wings are even capable of achieving the sort of upward lift that real flying would need. Perhaps he does like the flying squirrel.. glide, but we don't know that either:p

Attalus

03-02-2009, 06:30 PM

I agree that the Balrog most likely was not capable of flight. Though I don't know exactly what you mean by lightness. There's no inherent need for lack of mass when flying. An obvious example is a 747 passenger airliner. What is required is aerodynamic lift, to oppose the force of gravity. Sure enough, having wings isn't good enough. The wings of the Balrog, whether he had them or not, need to be able to create the lift necessary for a Balrog to cancel out his free fall.

That is quite true about the 747 and other jet aircraft. Their aerodynamic lift despite relatively small wing surfaces is achieved by tremendous amounts of thrust. Non-jet aircraft are comparitively light for their size, as I found out during a stint moving museum-aircraft around: they are made of (mainly) aluminum, wood, and/or canvas, enabling them to achieve flight on the small, weak engines available, then. Even today, prop aircraft struggle with heavier than usual payload, as anyone who has heard the stall alarm go off in a King-Air carrying three hunters, six rifles, and a bunch of ammunition and booze can testify. I dread the thought of adding pilot armor, let alone machie guns to that airframe.

Dragons are a special case, and have been portrayed repeatedly as very airy, as a result of thier fire-breathing power, and, of course, they have magical muscles to get the optimum thrust. Smaug, of course, has huge wings.

I do feel that Balrogs could fly on occasion (Tolkien refers to them in the earliest form of the Silmarillion as moving with winged speed, though that has been explained as a metaphor) but agree with all the posters here that , whatever wings Durin's Bane had or had not, he had neither the room nor the opportunity to use them, as was the case with Glorfindel's Balrog.

Galin

03-03-2009, 12:52 PM

I'm not sure the battle with Glorfindel is much described even in short prose versions after Tolkien had written the encounter in Moria, or finished The Lord of the Rings. Here's what I could find anyway, in the very late (early 1970s) essay on Glorfindel (Last Writings):

'... who in the pass of Cristhorn ('Eagle-cleft') fought with a demon, whom he slew at the cost of his own life.'

'... had sacrrificed his life in defending the fugitives from the wreck of Gondolin against a Demon out of Thangorodrim*

*in the margin Tolkien wrote: 'The duel of Glorfindel and the Demon may need revision'

In the first example the word 'Balrog' was changed to demon for some reason, and then Tolkien uses demon throughout (incidentally because of this I have seen at least one person argue the possibility that Tolkien was thinking of having Glorfindel defeat a great 'demon', but maybe not a Balrog necessarily). Anyway, it is somewhat amusing (to me) that Tolkien wrote 'may need revision' since the last time he had described this battle in any real detail was how many years ago? The quotes above were written no earlier than 1970, and the version of The Fall of Gondolin given in The Book of Lost Tales is that of 'Tuor B' in its final form, before Tolkien read the story at Exeter College in 1920. Going by that alone we have 50 years!

In the detailed long prose version Glorfindel was arguably battling an 'old conception Balrog'. If Tolkien had decided to give Balrogs wings only by the ultimate draft of The Lord of the Rings, then as the former encounter stood, Glorfindel's Balrog had no wings and could not fly in any case. I'm not trying to raise a side discussion on whether or not pre-Lord of the Rings Balrogs had wings or could fly, but for myself I think the evidence is fairly strong that they could not. To give one citation (and I think it is safe to say that in the late 1930s the Balrogs were not yet Maiar), in the Quenta Silmarillion written at this time it was said: 'But he loosed upon his foes the last desperate assault that he had prepared, and out of the pits of Angband there issued the winged dragons, that had not before been seen; for until that day no creatures of his cruel thought had yet assailed the air.'

Back to the texts: from the Later Annals of Beleriand (mid 1930s): 'They fell into ambush there, and Glorfindel of the house of the Golden Flower of Gondolin was slain, but they were saved by Thorndor, and escaped at last into the vale of Sirion.' I had to go back to 1930 (The Quenta) to find text that even describes the matter in enough detail to state they both fell: 'Songs have been sung of the duel of Glorfindel with the Balrog upon a pinnacle of rock in that high place; and both fell to ruin in the abyss.' In any case obviously Tolkien in 1972 could have retained the same basic story as back in 1920 and 1930. It's in his head still, if not again on paper. All I am saying is that as far as actual written text goes, he had only described this battle in any real detail very early, and had then only briefly referred to it before he wrote the encounter in Moria; and only briefly referred to it after the encounter (though I didn't check my linguistic documents here, I should add).

OK, so what about this possible revision? if the Balrog of Gondolin was 'now' a Balrog or 'Demon of might' as in one of the Maiar taken demon form, and if Tolkien now also imagined Balrogs could fly, where before they could not, then JRRT noting to himself this duel 'may need revision' arguably might go well beyond altering the archaic style he had employed back in his youth. And such beings could arguably, at least, now take on even the Eagles of Manwe (at least some of them), even if only at most seven (referring to the marginal note in AAm) ever existed. And the walls of Gondolin would now not be high enough for them, once the city was attacked.

And if so, where before he had held the winged dragons until the very end, now Tolkien would be introducing powerful flying Maiar into the picture very early with respect to the history of Beleriand (and these would be relatively huge beings too, for people who agree with Jackson's version)?

Hmmm :)

For myself I think 'old Balrogs' had no wings and couldn't fly, and I don't think JRRT gave his 'new Balrogs' flight or actual wings (nor do I think the thing changed shape in The Lord of the Rings after it fell into the water). What I think Tolkien did do was add terror by obscuring the form of the Demon. In the drafts of the Moria encounter CJRT notes that the Balrog could be clearly seen. However Tolkien then noted to himself...

'Alter description of Balrog. It seemed to be of man's shape, but its form could not be plainly discerned. It felt larger than it looked'. After the words 'Through the air it sprang over the fiery fissure' my father aded 'and a great shadow seemed to black out the light.'

The Bridge, The Treason of Isengard

I think this is one of the main moments of change in external Balrog history, along with making them Maiar and possibly drastically reducing their numbers.

Tolkien obscured it with shadow, and not a shadow as in 'lack of light' but ultimately with its own cloak of darkness, with a '... Dark which seems not lack but a thing of its own: for it was indeed made by malice out of light, and it had the power to pierce the eye, and to enter heart and mind, and strangle the vey will.' The Annals of Aman

Ok that description concerns Ungoliante actually :p some kind of living shadow like that then. Which at one point in Moria, looked like wings.

Coffeehouse

03-03-2009, 01:10 PM

Galin

03-03-2009, 01:31 PM

So there was maybe a 50 year lapse.. not very surprising. That would be fairly typical of Tolkien, especially in his later years when he had much available time to go through everything he had once written.

Well I found it amusing anyway, as I say, for JRRT to note this 50 years later, considering the textual history. The archaic style at least would 'need revision'. But moreover if early Balrogs could not fly (as I would argue, and were never described with wings), and were now powerful Maiar, there was other 'revision' possible here -- and possible revision that might go beyond Glorfindel's battle, which was the point I was trying to make with the dragons and etc.

This really brings in the question of whether the Balrog could alter its shape or not. As mentioned earlier, the Balrog would need a very well-working set of wings to achieve the needed upward lift, so whether there were no flying Balrogs during those earlier years does not really exclude the possibility of wings. It certainly renders it less likely though.

For myself I would not be much interested in arguing if pre-Lord of the Rings Balrogs had wings of any kind if they could not fly. There is nothing to suggest it in the texts concerned, and in The Book of Lost Tales it was said Melkor tore the wings off of birds to try and discover the secret of flight.

There is no textual evidence of flight, so anyone arguing in favor of flight would be purely speculating. And since we know little about the nature of the wing-like form that the Balrog had in Moria we do not know whether they were wings nor whether the wings had any ability to achieve lift.

A fair enough summation :) though I'm not sure exactly why this is in response to what you quoted of my earlier post.

Coffeehouse

03-03-2009, 01:39 PM

For myself I would not be much interested in arguing if pre-Lord of the Rings Balrogs had wings of any kind if they could not fly.

A moot point agreed.

A fair enough summation :) though I'm not sure exactly why this is in response to what you quoted of my earlier post.

Raised the issue in agreement since you wrote that you don't believe the Balrog had wings, and as there is no evidence of flying, and there is only cursory evidence of the presence of wings, any argument in favour of any of the above would be nothing but speculation. Moreover, the point I make is that for those who argue that Balrogs have wings, that in itself is no guarantee that the Balrog could use the wings to fly.

And lol I see you editted it to "my opinion", though don't you agree that it is in reality a fact, not a mere opinion. There is no evidence of flight in the Lord of the Rings and there is no in-depth information as to what kind of attributes these 'wings' had.

Galin

03-03-2009, 01:46 PM

Coffeehouse

03-03-2009, 01:50 PM

OK thanks. I guess someone agreeing with me can sometimes confuse me.

;)

And I edited it back, and only edited it in because some say (not me) that the Hithlum passage might be 'textual evidence' of flight.

Is it so? A passage in the Lord of the Rings? If so, you're right, it's an opinion. Even though you don't agree with it, could you provide the quote for that passage so I can look at it?

Thanx

Galin

03-03-2009, 02:05 PM

By the 'Hithlum passage' I mean the one that concerns the rescue of Morgoth by the Balrogs. Some seem to conclude it must mean flight because it is argued that only flying beings could have come to Morgoth in time (I would raise earlier versions of the passage in which orcs are also mentioned).

'Deep in forgotten places that cry was heard. Far beneath the halls of Angband, in vaults to which the Valar in the haste of their assault had not descended, the Balrogs lurked still, awaiting ever the return of their lord. Swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum, and they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire.' Later Quenta Silmarillion II, Morgoth's Ring (though again, earlier versions of this rescue note Orcs).

Others might even raise 'flying from Thangorodrim' as 'textual evidence' from Appendix A (instead of interpreting it to mean 'fleeing'). 'Thus they roused from sleep a thing of terror that, flying from Thangorodrim, had lain hidden ...' Appendix A Durin's Folk (I note the use of 'flying', for example, when describing fleeing orcs later in the same section).

I guess it depends on what one means by 'textual evidence'. But I would agree that there is no text that certainly and easily states Balrogs can fly or had wings like that of a bat, for example.

If there was... ;)

The Dread Pirate Roberts

03-03-2009, 04:19 PM

The early period when Ungoliant confronted Morgoth seems to me to be a period during which all of the incarnate spirits could disincarnate and incarnate bodies at will. So without bodies one might accurately consider their mode of travel as flying, and who knows what great speeds they might attain?

I don't think there is any strong evidence for Balroggian (Balrogish?) flight anywhere, and shape-shifting is only marginally less suspect, IMO.

Galin

03-03-2009, 05:23 PM

Here's something the EoA did not include in the linked article (apologies if it's already in the thread somewhere). In Osanwe-centa it is said (I edited this a bit):

'Here Pengolodh adds a long note on the use of hroar by the Valar. In brief he says that though in origin a 'self-arraying', it may tend to approach the state of 'incarnation', especially with the lesser members of that order (the Maiar). 'It is said that the longer and the more the same hroa is used, the greater is the bond of habit, and the less do the 'self-arrayed' desire to leave it.' (...)

'Melkor alone of the Great became at last bound to a bodily form; but that was because of the use that he made of this in his purpose to become Lord of the Incarnate, and of the great evils that he did in the visible body. Also he had dissipated his native powers in the control of his agents and servants, so that he became in the end, in himself and without their support, a weakened thing, consumed by hate and unable to restore himself from the state into which he had fallen. Even his visible form he could no longer master, so that its hideousness could not any longer be masked, and it showed forth the evil of his mind. So it was also with even some of his greatest servants, as in these later days we see: they became wedded to the forms of their evil deeds, and if these bodies were taken from them or destroyed, they were nullified, until they had rebuilt a semblance of their former habitations, with which they could continue the evil courses in which they had become fixed.' (Pengolodh here evidently refers to Sauron in particular, from whose arising he fled at last from Middle-earth.)' JRRT, Osanwe-kenta note 5, Vinyar Tengwar

For possible consideration at least.

The Dread Pirate Roberts

03-04-2009, 09:57 AM

Great find, Galin. That's the kind of stuff I had in mind, though I didn't know the source. I suppose my view depends somewhat on whether the Ungoliant versus Morgoth & the Balrogs episode should be considered "in these later days" or early enough that they could and would rather easily disincarnate.

I think this should influence the ideas of shape-shifting, as well. If in later days such as the Third Age the long-embodied Maiar could no longer leave and reproduce their bodies, it seems probable that they could also no longer alter those bodies and willfully shape-shift either, even if they once had that ability.

So in conclusion, the Moria balrog couldn't fly and couldn't shape-shift.

Attalus

03-06-2009, 01:26 PM

That indeed is a great find, Galin and seems to provide much insight as to the Balrogs' ability (or inability) to shapeshift. I, myself, believe that the appearance of wings on Durin's Bane on the Bridge was a type of 'threat display,' as modern biological jargon would phrase it, intended to overawe and firghten. Didn't work in Gandalf's case, did it?

Valarauko5

03-08-2009, 05:15 AM

Apparently I've been gone for too long from this thread because we're back into the same old stupid arguments guys. Really, we're all intelligent people. That is a nice little article Galin, but it proves nothing and has little bearing on Balrogs themselves. You say it probably refers specifically to Sauron right? But long after Melkor was cast out of the realms, Sauron could still choose different forms. And why on earth are we discussing what material, of all things, a Balrogs wings are made of! That's absurd! You guys are trying to apply real world physics, to something that defies the laws of physics already! Can anything in the real world control the shadows around it? Please, can we stick with the proper fantasy world idea here? I might add, just in case, that I never said they did or did not specifically have wings (except in silliness about my personal balrog shape:D) I was trying to nullify the debate, because a Maia can change shape if it wants. And no, they don't just change according to their surroundings. That would mean that Melkor would have looked pretty in Valamar.:rolleyes: And wether or not the original text could have possibly meant original Balrogs, the original descriptions of Balrogs are very little like how the book itself describes the Balrog. I'm sorry if this sounds like flaming, but things like wether or not they could fly with their wings is a mute point, especially with Gandalf. Even if the Balrog tried to fly away (which it wouldn't because even in our earlier discussion we decided the most likely reason for it waking up was Gandalf's pressence) flying combat is not something you want to do against something that shoots lightning at you. (this is mentioned in The Two Towers) If he had tried to escape he would have been shot down. And then where would he be. Besides, he knew the area. His most likely shot would be to catch Gandalf unawares in an area he knew. Besides, he's not worried about some little humans and their swords. "Swords are no more use here" As Gandalf said. He could deal with them later. Out of curiosity, (and this may seem strange) why do are some of you so against wings?

Valarauko5

03-08-2009, 05:25 AM

I will fully admit that I like the idea of wings on a Balrog. It makes it more terrifying. But I'm trying to be completely logical and fair about this. It would seem to me that the whole idea of wether or not they have wings is mute because of their ability to change form. Obviously the article Galin found is good in and of istelf, but is wholely defeated in its usefulness here by the fact that the text itself says it changes to a different form later. (please Galin, don't take this the wrong way. It's good that you're trying and I appreciate it. I don't want to offend anyone here:)) Again, please forgive me if I sound upset. It's just a little aggrevating sometimes to see this sort of thing. I don't really believe that Tolkien meant for us to argue over this. That's why I even got on these Balrog threads. I think the argument of wings is mute because of this, and that we should try to eliminate this whole idea of arguing over it. We were discussing it quite well earlier, but now it seems we're back to arguing. Technicalities like "could its wing material support its weight" are just ridiculous guys. Honestly. If we're going to discuss this, let's find real hard evidence that it can't shape change. I haven't found anything yet that convinces me it can't.

Coffeehouse

03-08-2009, 05:42 AM

I think I see the line of reasoning your at.

Though I must say I think there have been some excellent points raised by previous posters here, and really they aren't completely irrelevant.

I happen to believe that real-world physics do apply to a greater extent than not in Tolkien's Middle Earth. Although the presence of magic doesn't quite add up to real-world physics, neither does magic come easy. It has its physics and Tolkien often manages to tie these two realms of physics into each others so that there is a coherence.

In any case, in relation to populations, only the minority of creatures in Middle Earth have the ability to wield magic of some sort. The Hobbits for example are nearly entirely detached from it, arguable only hobbits exposed to adventures into the greater world are affected to some degree or another.

But I digress: I just think that including physics as a tool for understanding behaviour is appropriate, because although Tolkien devised a world with magic there is much in its foundation that relies on the physics of our own world:cool:

Honestly. If we're going to discuss this, let's find real hard evidence that it can't shape change. I haven't found anything yet that convinces me it can't.

For my part, I am so far not convinced the least about shape-changing. Based on what I've read I can see no extensive ability to change shape, so if you argue that it can change shape, the burden of proof rests upon your arguments. I.e., if there is evidence that it can, it's up to you to present it, right?:)

The Dread Pirate Roberts

03-08-2009, 08:44 AM

Apparently I've been gone for too long ... stupid arguments ... it proves nothing and has little bearing on Balrogs themselves. ...That's absurd! ... a Maia can change shape if it wants. And no, they don't just change according to their surroundings. That would mean that Melkor would have looked pretty in Valamar. ...this sounds like flaming, but things like wether or not they could fly with their wings is a mute point, ... Again, please forgive me if I sound upset. It's just a little aggrevating sometimes to see this sort of thing. I don't really believe that Tolkien meant for us to argue over this. That's why I even got on these Balrog threads. I think the argument of wings is mute because of this, and that we should try to eliminate this whole idea of arguing over it. We were discussing it quite well earlier, but now it seems we're back to arguing. Technicalities like "could its wing material support its weight" are just ridiculous guys. Honestly. If we're going to discuss this, let's find real hard evidence that it can't shape change. I haven't found anything yet that convinces me it can't.

1. Pot, meet kettle. Nobody was arguing or insulting. It's been an excellent and civil discussion of an unsettled and perhaps unprovable point.

2. Moot. The word is moot.

3. The final two sentences attempt to shape the debate in a way that is impossible to succeed. Requiring us to find hard evidence that something is impossible without needing to provide any evidence that it is possible in the first place? Yeah, that's shaping the discussion fairly and with an open mind. :rolleyes:

Coffeehouse

03-08-2009, 09:40 AM

1. Pot, meet kettle. Nobody was arguing or insulting. It's been an excellent and civil discussion of an unsettled and perhaps unprovable point.

2. Moot. The word is moot.

3. The final two sentences attempt to shape the debate in a way that is impossible to succeed. Requiring us to find hard evidence that something is impossible without needing to provide any evidence that it is possible in the first place? Yeah, that's shaping the discussion fairly and with an open mind. :rolleyes:

Really I couldn't agree more. To me this has seemed a productive discussion of a topic that really does not lend us much information. With the help of Galin it seems we've come to an understanding of the Balrog as much as can be expected, debating something that may perhaps be an unprovable point:cool:

I want to raise some of the points you raised Valarauko..

I will fully admit that I like the idea of wings on a Balrog. It makes it more terrifying.

Agree to that, but although the Balrog produced a wing-shaped form at the Bridge of Khazad-dûm it does not mean that it actually had permanent wings. It may have been that all the smoke, fire and dark matter that emanated from it merely provoked an illusion in the eyes of the Company. The effect, as you say, is terrifying;) Yet not necessarily permanent.

So I think it's fair to say that although there was a wing-like shape present, that in itself does not conclude that a Balrog had wings. Neither does it conclude that a Balrog can change shape at will.

Yet you seem to assume that..

It would seem to me that the whole idea of wether or not they have wings is mute because of their ability to change form.

Obviously the article Galin found is good in and of istelf, but is wholely defeated in its usefulness here by the fact that the text itself says it changes to a different form later.

I don't see which quote gives evidence of this. Quite the contrary, as Galin quotes, (and as we know is the case for Sauron), the ability to change shapes seems to diminish with the depth of evil a creature sinks to: they became wedded to the forms of their evil deeds

Technicalities like "could its wing material support its weight" are just ridiculous guys.

How is that ridiculous?

The creatures of Tolkien's Middle Earth exist in a world where there is magic, but although creatures such as the Balrog are fantastical, ancient creatures, they still must adhere to the environment in which they live. The Elves, the Ents, even Tom Bombadil, is securely bounded to the laws of nature (albeit modified in the magical realm)

And if there is one property in Middle Earth that seems to be very similar to ours it is gravity.

Gravity plays in on our discussion: The ability to fly is dependent on lift, just as Smaug and the Eagles need wings to fly, the Nazgûl need winged beasts to fly, Sarumann, Gandalf and Radagast the Brown for all their magical endeavours cannot fly, the Eye of Sauron cannot fly, the magical One Ring cannot fly (it's history indeed centres much around it's proneness to the pull of gravity:p)

Attalus

03-08-2009, 01:33 PM

I agree with you, Coffeehouse. Tolkien went to great lengths to make his fantasy world congruent with physical reality, witness the trouble he took to keep the Moon's phases consistent throughout the saga. Galadriel puts great emphasis on the *naturalness* of Elf-magic and its essentialy uncontrollable nature. The more magic was controlled, (e.g., by Saruman, the "vulgar, scientific magician," or even the Smiths of Eregion), the more evil it wrought. I think it is fascinating, and a large part of Tolkien's continuing allure, that he did *NOT* spell out everything, leaving us to guess and sppeculate. He even said, about Tom Bombadil, that his nature was unexplained on purpose, for a fFantasy should contain fantastic elements. The same, I think, may be extended to the Balrogs.

Gordis

03-08-2009, 01:47 PM

Well, let us forget this little interlude which, sorry to say, looked a lot like unprovoked flaming :( and return to our nice and polite discussion.:)

As far as I see, the important thing is to determine whether Durin's Bane has already lost his Maiaric ability to shape-shift or not.

Let us look at Galin's quote again:
'It is said that the longer and the more the same hroa is used, the greater is the bond of habit, and the less do the 'self-arrayed' desire to leave it.' (...)
'Melkor alone of the Great became at last bound to a bodily form; but that was because of the use that he made of this in his purpose to become Lord of the Incarnate, and of the great evils that he did in the visible body. Also he had dissipated his native powers in the control of his agents and servants, so that he became in the end, in himself and without their support, a weakened thing, consumed by hate and unable to restore himself from the state into which he had fallen. Even his visible form he could no longer master, so that its hideousness could not any longer be masked, and it showed forth the evil of his mind. '
and at another one from Morgoth's Ring ("Orcs"): In any case is it likely or possible that even the least of the Maiar would become Orcs? Yes: both outside Arda and in it, before the fall of Utumno. Melkor had corrupted many spirits - some great, as Sauron, or less so, as Balrogs. The least could have been primitive (and much more powerful and perilous) Orcs; but by practising when embodied procreation they would (cf. Melian) [become] more and more earthbound, unable to return to spirit-state (even demon-form), until released by death (killing), and they would dwindle in force.

So, the factors that contribute to the eventual loss of shape-shifting ability are:
1. How long the same hroa is used
Here we can say that Durin's Bane used this hroa for at least as long as Sauron used his, or much longer (if we consider Sauron's subsequent incarnations as totally different hroar)
2. How much the same hroa is used (I guess that to use your hroa for walking/flying around and fighting is worse than to sleep in it).
Well, after the First Age Durin's Bane mostly used his hroa to sleep.
3. How much evil is done while using the hroa.
Here I don't think one of the Balrogs under Gothmog could do more evil than Sauron, Morgoth's right hand. Yet, Sauron by the end of the FA has NOT lost his shape-shifting ability, it happened around the time of his first "death" in the Downfall. DB slept for an Age and a half, then killed a lot of Dwarves, then, kept rather low profile. Was it enough to loose shape-shifting ability? I don't know,
4. How strong the Maia was at the beginning and how much power became dissipated. Here DB is at a disadvantage vs Sauron, he was likely much weaker from the start.
5. Has the Maia ever been killed and reincarnated?
Here, for DB we have to answer NO. - a point in his favor.
6. Did the Maia practice procreation while using the hroa?
DB has no love story that we know of, so we can assume he remained chaste.;)

So, 1 and 4 are in DB's disadvantage, 2, 5 and 6 seem to be in his favor, 3 is unclear. The result is uncertain.:rolleyes:

Earniel

03-08-2009, 03:18 PM

'Yet [the abyss] has a bottom, beyond light and knowledge,' said Gandalf. 'Thither I came at last, to the uttermost foundations of stone. He was with me still. His fire was quenched, but now he was a thing of slime, stronger than a strangling snake.
'We fought far under the living earth, where time is not counted. Ever he clutched me, and ever I hewed him, till at last he fled into dark tunnels. [...]
'There upon Celebdil was a lonely window in the snow, and before it lay a narrow space, a dizzy eyrie above the mists of the world. The sun shone fiercely there, but all below was wrapped in cloud. Out he sprang, and even as I came behind, he burst into new flame.

It sounds very much like shape-shifting to me. A thing of fire and shadow became a thing of slime (to adjust to the surroundings), and then turned back again into the thing of fire.
I don't think this passage can only be explained with shape shifting abilities. To me, it sounds like the slimy but strong shape is just the same shape as the Balrog but simply without the fire. (I kinda liked Jonathan idea of the slime being oil and therefor fuel to the fire. :p It leads to... interesting mental pictures...)

That said, I am of the opinion that Balrogs had shape shifting abilities, but somehow far more limited, than say Sauron. I sort of always assumed that while Maiar all had the ability to change heir rainment, once they choose a shape, that ability diminished greatly. The quote Galin posted in post #169 seems to partly support this view. And apart from Sauron, there appears to be no creature in the texts capable of changing repeatedly into a variety of forms. At least, I currently don't remember one. Werewolves are mentioned, but if we follow the classic example therein, they only have two shapes, the wolf-form and a humanoid form. Thuringwethil appears to have a bat-form and/or something of a mix of bat with humanoid in it.

I wonder whether the Balrog couldn't quite change its shape, but rather its appearance. Could it perhaps control more how people perceived it, than its actual shape? Sort of like the presence of nazgul invoked people with a feeling of dread, that the balrog's presence made people think it was larger and more powerful than it actually was? I was particularly struck in that regard by the earlier quoted: 'It felt larger than it looked'. It was able to control fire as well as shadow, could it have used shadow as a sort of smoke-screen, to make it more menacing and larger than his true shape was? Luthien, being of Maia-blood too, was able to change her and Beren's appearance to Thuringwethil and a wolf, but it would appear without actually changing form.

But the quote did brought something to my attention that I hadn't noticed before. The Balrog only breaks out in flames again when he came into the sun light. Would he have needed the light or fire to ignite again?

And why on earth are we discussing what material, of all things, a Balrogs wings are made of! That's absurd! You guys are trying to apply real world physics, to something that defies the laws of physics already!
I disagree, this is hardly absurd. While Middle-earth is a fantasy world with magical aspects that our world has not, this does not stop one from identifying rules acording to which this magic does work. Tolkien's magic doesn't work purely random, he made great attempts to remain consistant so there are definitions and patterns we can detect in the Middle-earth magic even if we have nothing similar in our own world.

We're dealing with highly speculative matters and I'm pretty sure we are all aware of that, but there's no shame in that and it can lead to very interesting discussions. So if people wish to engage in these discussions, they are prefectly welcome to. I for one, find this discussion very interesting, both in reading what has been posted and trying to compose my own opinions and see how well the textual evidence supports it or not. :)

Gordis

03-08-2009, 05:00 PM

That said, I am of the opinion that Balrogs had shape shifting abilities, but somehow far more limited, than say Sauron. I sort of always assumed that while Maiar all had the ability to change heir rainment, once they choose a shape, that ability diminished greatly. The quote Galin posted in post #169 seems to partly support this view. And apart from Sauron, there appears to be no creature in the texts capable of changing repeatedly into a variety of forms.
I think it is a very good idea: the shape-shifting ability doesn't disappear all of a sudden but diminishes gradually, becomes more and more limited, when some factors I have tried to list above are at work.

Take Sauron. In FA he was able to change from his usual shape into a wolf then into a serpent, then back into his own form, then into a vampire-bat - all in matter of minutes. In the Second Age he was able to assume different fair or foul humanoid forms but we don't see him assuming animal shapes or flying anymore. Had he not lost this ability, perhaps he would have survived the Downfall flying away from the doomed Island or swimming away as a fish. Then after the first reincarnation he even lost the ability to assume fair forms, to mask his evilness.

The Istari, much restricted in their abilities while on mission to ME, seem to be on a level with Sauron of the late SA or even TA: they could change their appearance somewhat (Saruman could look exactly like Gandalf), but definitely couldn't fly without Eagles.

Willow Oran

03-08-2009, 05:17 PM

Weren't the Istari deliberately sent to ME in more definitely incarnate forms though? So their inability to shape-shift would have been willingly undertaken and an exception to their normal abilities.

As for Balrogs, I like the idea of them being able to generate illusions around themselves in order to be more intimidating. It makes a great deal of sense.
But I do think that they might have had physical wings as well, which, while not enough to enable real flight, might have allowed for gliding or augmented jumping. Tolkien does describe both DB and Glorfindel's balrog as entering those fights by means of some impressive leaps, which means we've either got some shadow/fire demons with the back legs of a Tigger or maybe some wings that can lift these balrogs' weight and help to carry it short distances.

Valarauko5

03-09-2009, 01:30 AM

I apologize for the harshness of my earlier statements. But it's obvious to me that the books themselves tell us a Balrog can at least modify its shape and probably if it wanted (though why a Balrog would want to I don't know:D) change it's form completely. And so far I haven't found evidence to the contrary. Saying that it has an oil slick for skin is a bit silly to me. I would assume that the reason it only bursts into flame outside, is that it had to recuperate some energy or magic force to be able to. Thus the long climb up the stairs instead of just fighting all the way up. And I really don't see the use of physics too much if you can simply use magic. But, putting that aside since I have no real true evidence to support that to me it just seems logicial, and that, I realize, is not an argument. Say it doesn't have wings. How does it leap over a fiery chasm that trolls have to lay great slabs of rock across? It would seem to me that Willow Oran has the right idea. Gliding makes much more sense for a Balrog than flight. To be honest I never believed they could fly completely. I simply think real wings are intimidating and would make you THINK it could fly, thus frightening you further and discouraging flight (haha, pun):D. And the "smoke screen" it could make would simply further the intimidation property of said wings. Though nobody seemed to answer my earlier question. Why do some people really believe that a Balrog doesn't have wings? Not this "flight in the book is a metaphor" stuff. A real reason?

Gordis

03-09-2009, 04:56 AM

Though nobody seemed to answer my earlier question. Why do some people really believe that a Balrog doesn't have wings? Not this "flight in the book is a metaphor" stuff. A real reason?
I don't believe that a Balrog has wings because I haven't seen convincing arguments that it does. On the contrary, I have seen convincing arguments that it doesn't - you can see them in this thread.
If I ask why you don't believe that Gandalf has wings you would answer much the same, though it would be cool to have a winged Istar.;)

The Dread Pirate Roberts

03-09-2009, 10:06 AM

But it's obvious to me that the books themselves tell us a Balrog can at least modify its shape and probably if it wanted (though why a Balrog would want to I don't know) change it's form completely.
Post a quote, please.

Attalus

03-09-2009, 11:44 AM

Don't forget that Saruman seemed to be able to project phantoms of himself, e.g., when Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas were resting. Could this be one of the properties of his mysterious Ring?

Coffeehouse

03-09-2009, 02:06 PM

Post a quote, please.

I'd ask for the same as DPR, a quote or something to back up that statement. Because if your referring to what I think you're (Valarauko) referring to, namely 1) the Balrog's wing-like shadow-projection and 2) it's slimy form in the underground sea in its fight with Gandalf, then I'd argue that neither of these are nothing but very perifal indicators that it might be able to change its shape. But it does not even conclude whether the Balrog does so willingly or not, because the shadow-projection might have been nothing but a form of hallucination on the part of the Company. And the slimy form it had in the underground sea, as Jonathan remarked, could have been caused by its body contacting water, instead of it consciously producing a slimy form. The fact that it emits fire and black smoke could point to some oily attribute and that would go along way in explaining its slimy form in contact with water.

Varnafindë

03-09-2009, 02:20 PM

Off topic:

If I ask why you don't believe that Gandalf has wings you would answer much the same, though it would be cool to have a winged Istar.;)

A winged Maia - isn't that as close to an angel as you can get? :eek:

Back to topic.

Gordis

03-09-2009, 02:50 PM

Off topic:
A winged Maia - isn't that as close to an angel as you can get? :eek:

Yea, that's why I thought about Gandalf. Something like that: Gandalf is an Angel (see Letters). Angels have wings (see the Bible). Therefore Gandalf has wings. :cool:
It is an argument - but is it convincing?:p:D

The Dread Pirate Roberts

03-09-2009, 03:40 PM

I'm convinced. Gandalf had wings which he kept hidden under his cloak and/or hat.

Galin

03-09-2009, 10:11 PM

I think the cloak was the wings...

In a dream Frodo saw Gandalf: 'On it rode a grey-mantled figure: his white hair was streaming, and his cloak flew like wings behind him.' Chapter V The Fourth Phase (i), The Treason of Isengard. OK that's a draft text (and a dream), but Gandalf could fly: 'Gandalf came flying down the steps and fell to the ground in the midst of the Company.'

Well, he needs to work on his landing a bit maybe.

Gordis

03-10-2009, 10:14 AM

:D Awesome!

Attalus

03-10-2009, 11:15 AM

Off topic:

A winged Maia - isn't that as close to an angel as you can get? :eek:

Back to topic.Gandalf may well have had wings in his original form, but we are told explictly that the Istari were clothed in the form of old (human) men and that they had to endure Middle-earth in that form.

Gordis

03-10-2009, 02:03 PM

Yea, Manwe had cropped Olorin's wings with rusty scissors before sending him to ME.:D

Valarauko5

03-12-2009, 08:14 PM

Hey guys. Does anyone have a facebook? I really respect you guys and I need some backup on this stupid kid on there. These people are designing a game that's supposed to be based on the LotR books (it actually looks promising) and this guy Ross is giving them a wicked hard time. They asked people to put up Monster names (like specific names for Orcs and other creatures) and other Monster races from the books (like barrow wights, and werewolves). And this kid is just an idiot. He tried to tell me that Orome was a Maia! Went on and on correcting me. Could any of you help me out? I realize we don't all see eye to eye on things, but at least you guys actually think about what you say and know what you're talking about.

Jonathan

03-13-2009, 02:25 AM

Sliding slightly off topic here, unless Durin's Bane has his own Facebook account of course ;)

Attalus

03-13-2009, 11:29 AM

Durin's Bane wouldn't have his own Facebook account, because, whatever Balrogs are, they are not banal and jejune.:p

Valarauko5

03-14-2009, 02:14 AM

um. If I knew what banal and jejune were I don't think I would be them. But I'm a balrog, and I have a Facebook:D. I realize it's off topic. But like I said. You guys actually know what you're talking about. I was just wondering if you would look at the "the one ring game" group if you did have a facebook. That's all.

Coffeehouse

03-14-2009, 06:53 AM

I'll check it out;) And Attalus thinks it somewhat common and childish by those two words.. each to his own I guess:cool: Facebook rox!:)

P.S. I found the discussion you're having in Facebook, and I'll publish it here , though I won't include your name Valarauko for your privacy:

Title of thread (in a LOTR Facebook group):
"Monster Names needed"

Thread request:
"As part of our game design and community development we would like you to be part of the game design process. We need names for all the generic monsters that you encounter in Middle-earth. They're of the type; Orcs (all types), Men (Harad and Easterlings), Trolls (all types), Wargs/Wolves (all types), Spiders and Spirits. Ideally all non-human names should be in Black-speech and where possible indicate

So put your suggestions here - ideally of the format:

Orc: Snaga (slave) etc
Troll: Tom. Bill etc

Thanks"

Valarauko's answer (correct me if this isn't your post from Facebook):
I'm assuming that you guys want basic MONSTER types. Not just characters right? Or do you want some other good characters too? Have you put in the characters of Balrog: Gothmog (Balrog General), and Giant Hound: Charcharoth (Morgoth's personal guard dog). They are from the Silmarillion. And if you still want good characters, Giant Angelic Hound: Huan (Angelic hound and friend to elves). The first hound is a natural (if modified and magic'd) hound. He was fed by Morgoth's hand and thus became large and powerful. The second hound is a Maia, putting him in the same power level as Sauron, but on the good side.

Response by another person on Facebook:
"First of all in the world of Tolkien werewolves are not like the werewolves people massively talk about today, werewolves were servants of Sauron who could take the shape of a wolf. Also Huan was NOT a Maia(Maiar is plural), he was the hunting hound of Oromë, Oromë gave Huan to Celegorm son of Faënor for he was a great hunter also.After the darkining of Valinor, Faënor and his sons took the Oath of Faënor and went after Morgoth into Middle-Earth,and Huan followed them. Oromë was a Maia,and Maiar are lesser forms of the Valar. The Valar are 14 powerful spirits who took physical form and entered Arda after its creation to give order to the world. Also Huan was not a Maia,therefore not the same power as Sauron, now in the Lay of Leithian, the story of Beren(the man) and Lúthien Tinúviel(nightengale of Doriath and daughter of Thingol and Melian, King and Queen of Doriath and the fairest elf that ever lived), Beren was captured by Sauron and with the aid of Luthien, Huan took her to Saurons Isle(Minas Tirith) and rescued Beren. Now during that rescue Luthien and Huan were stopped oustide Tol-in-Gaurhoth(Tol Sirion=Minas Tirith) by Drauglin the sire of werewolves. Drauglin being the mightiest wolf at the time,was mortaly wound by Huan and fled to his master Sauron,and with his dieing breath told him that it was Huan and Luthien outside. Now Sauron knowing of the prophecies that Huan could only be killed by the mightiest wolf in the world, thought if he changed into wolf form that he may be that wolf,so Sauron changed into a dreadful wolf shape and came after Luthien.Luthien using here enchanted cloak that put most creatures to sleep(how she escaped from doriath to rescure beren),only phased and stunted Sauron, during this daze, Huan sprung and grabbed Wolf-Sauron by the throat.Sauron then tried to change into a snake to escape,but once something has been grasped by Huans jaws nothing and no one can escape it.Only after Sauron surrendered the tower to Luthien was he released from Huans jaws and he fled eastward then to Dorthonion, where he dwelt in the dark pine forests of Taur-nu-Fuin.Then Beren and Luthien were reunited, and Beren using the pelt of Drauglin as a disguise and Luthien and Huan had previously caught Thuringwethil(bat messenger of Sauron) at Tol-in-Gaurhoth, her winged form was taken by Lúthien. From there they had to pass Carcharoth(not CharCharoth) the Red Maw,raised by Sauron in the afore mentioned statement(at least that was right).By Luthiens powers they passed that fowl beast and luthien sang morgoth to sleep,beren then using a dagger to pry a Silmaril from morgoths crown after it had fallen to the ground from his sleep,the dagger broke and hit morgoth,wakeing him,they then fled from Morgoth's lair only to be stopped again by Carcharoth. Carcharoth then bite Berens hand off the clasped the Silmaril, sending the beast into a frenzied rage,this fowl and evil creature now had one of the most pure hallowed artifacts of arda inside him and he was crazed and went trampling throughout middle-earth until beren and luthien informed thingol about what had happened. then began the Hunting of the Wolf.

any other questions i would be happy to help clear out,also going to have a couple of my friends who are even more knowledgeable about the Tolkien works,and they love to correct people even more."

Valarauko5

03-15-2009, 03:36 AM

Yes that would be part of it. See what I mean? He calls Orome a Maia not a Valar. And he says that I said Carcharoth was fed by Sauron's hand. Except that I said Morgoth is the one who fed him because that's what the Silmarillion says. I admit I could be wrong about Huan. I'm reading the Silmarillion again to get a handle on it. But I was under the impression he was a Maia. But seeing as we were discussing the Maia and their abilities, even though we have different opinions on some things, you guys know your stuff. Thanks for taking a look. What do you think?

Valarauko5

03-15-2009, 03:38 AM

Thanks for not telling everyone who I am. :) I don't mind the idea but I appreciate the thought there. By the way. Does it say anywhere in the books that the werewolves of Sauron were not like normal werewolves? I don't remember anywhere it saying that.

Earniel

03-15-2009, 06:23 AM

There's a good, recent thread discussing what Huan was here (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?t=14708&highlight=haun). There's a thread about werewolves and others I remember here (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/search.php?searchid=760917) but I'm sure if you do a search better results will turn up, or if you wish to discuss things with a fresh insight, you can easily start a new thread. Let's keep this threads for balrogs only. :)

Attalus

03-15-2009, 01:19 PM

Let's keep this threads for balrogs only. :)
Balrogs have wings
Because they are airy, firey things.
They fly about Arda each day
Seeking Children and Dwarves to slay.
They need their wings,
Unnatural things
To make it easier to disobey.
Balrogs do not have wings
Because they are earthen, slimy kings.
If they could fly
Then say goodbye
To happy, sunlit, laughing things.
There you have it,
That's the crux
Of the puzzle every Tolkien fan discussed.
I don't know which one is true
'Cause Tollers didn't tell. Can you?
-Bill Atkinson

Valarauko5

03-16-2009, 12:52 AM

I think that's probably my favorite Lord of the Rings poem right there. I think maybe we're gonna have to leave it at that. I feel that the books prove that it could change it's form, and some of you do not. I guess it's just a matter of opinion. Can we just agree that it's possible either way with what Tolkien gave us? I think this has been a great discussion. I fully agree that I cannot put forth any definitive evidence that they have wings. But that does not prove they don't have them. I also don't really think there is truly definitive evidence they don't have wings. But that doesn't prove the don't have wings. Maybe someday there will be another letter or something released that will give us a definite answer, but thanks. This has been quite enlightening guys.

Valarauko5

03-16-2009, 12:55 AM

Thanks Earniel. That helps. I'm not used to chat sites so I don't navigate them well. Sorry about the divergence from the topic. This is just the thread where I know anything about these people. They know their stuff and I needed someone's help. Thanks again. :)

The Dread Pirate Roberts

03-16-2009, 12:20 PM

Another question that may have some bearing on the issue is what is meant when we say Durin's Bane "slept" beneath the mountains for all those years.

Was he embodied, and that body slept?
If so, that's a long time to be sitting in one, unchanging body.

Or did he sleep in spirit, only creating a body for use while awake?
In such case, there's a better chance he (it?) retained his ability to make whatever body he chose.

Or did the body sleep, while the spirit went off and did other things?
This is least likely, IMO, because you are your spirit in Tolkien's world; the body is just an enclosure.

Earniel

03-16-2009, 03:16 PM

Can a spirit remained unhoused for that long? I sort of doubt it. Changing shapes is one thing, but repeatedly giving up and summoning up bodies at will is quite another. And the later doesn't seem to be a skill available to the Balrogs.

I would believe the Balrog slept in its own body for all those years, both body and spirit dormant. His form isn't mortal and bound to decay like those of Men so I don't think his body would suffer much from sleeping for millennia.

One can also wonder in what state the Balrog was when he escaped the war. Was he injured? Perhaps he needed a good age sleep to recover.

The Dread Pirate Roberts

03-16-2009, 03:46 PM

Attalus

03-16-2009, 04:29 PM

Well, certainly Sauron is stated to be unable to change into a form pleasing to the eye, so it seems he did have some sort of body. We won't get into "he only has four on the Black Hand". Fingolfin wounded Melkor, and the Silmaril burned him, so he must have had some sort of body, too. Balrogs could be killed, too, hee hee.

The Dread Pirate Roberts

03-16-2009, 04:42 PM

The question isn't whether they had bodies.

Valarauko5

03-17-2009, 02:48 AM

Can anyone find the exact wording in the books on that part? I'm not sure if it said "slept". If it did though, maybe it just meant he was hiding and resting up. I'm not really sure on that. Though IMO a Balrog doesn't need to keep his form. It says the Maiar are just not as powerful as the Valar. And the Sil specifically states that they could walk at times unseen but not unfelt.

Earniel

03-17-2009, 07:58 AM

Eärniel, I was under the impression that the Maiar didn't need to be embodied at all. Ever. Only if they wanted to. They're not like disembodied Elvish spirits. They're a different thing altogether. Right? Or am I wrong?
Not sure if I can put my thoughts on this in words well enough, but I'll try. Theoretically, I agree, maiar don't really need of bodies, not like Men and also not like Elves, they only took up physical form to interact with the world. But I always had the feeling, that by coming down to Arda, they also became a part of Arda in a way, that they eventually would need a sort of material anchor in the world, a body. The Ainur, Valar and Maiar are all pretty fluid beings, but it seems that for some changes, there was a point where there was no turning back. That this materialism eventually, especially when the building of Arda got disturbed into Arda marred, came a habit too hard to shake.

There is no mention of body-less maiar outside of Valinor. Even Sauron who had the misfortune of losing his body in the fall of Númenor, immediately took another one, and even that skill lessened in time: he could no longer alter his appearance after a while, the question remains whether he could at that time even rebuild an entire body for himself. There is no mention of the Balrogs re-embodying after their body was killed. They are considered to have died with it. That's why I sort of reckoned that even if the maiar could theoretically exist without a body, they could no longer do so outside Valinor as time passed.

There's another issue relating to the Balrogs in this: there is no telling how and if the Balrogs were changed by Morgoth. Can the rules that applied to maiar still be said to apply entirely for Balrogs or other maiar under Morgoth's rule? The rules certainly didn't seem to apply to Sauron.