PDA

View Full Version : Pointed ears?


Fat middle
01-16-2000, 05:34 PM
Have the elves pointed ears? I cannot recall any quote about their ears, but i know thy often are depicted with pointed ears. I personally don´t imagine elves with pointed ears: for me the difference between elves and men would be the luminosity of elves´ face and hair and perhaps something about their voices. What do you think? Do you know a "canon" depict of the elves?...

bmilder
01-16-2000, 05:53 PM
Hmm, interesting point. I think of the Elves with pointy ears, but I can't recall a passage from the text stating as much.

Eruve
01-16-2000, 09:07 PM
As anyone who's ever read the Tolkien newsgroups on Usenet knows, this is a highly contentious issue. Many a flame war has been fought over this subject. I believe it's second only to the question of whether or not Balrogs have wings in falme-production. There is a "canonical" quote somewhere (I don't know where) that Elves' ears are leaf shaped. Of course, the degree of pointedness depends on the leaf, so we're really back at square one. I believe the answer is that they're somewhat pointed, but not to the extent of Mr. Spock.

Darth Tater
01-17-2000, 03:46 AM
I don't think they do, and I think it's part of the americanization of everything good. However, they will be a little pointed in the movie :(, simply because of America's view of things :(

Fat middle
01-18-2000, 01:48 PM
Thanks all! I didn´t know it was such as debated issue, Eruve Anyway, if they´re going to be pointed in the movies i hope it´ll be not too much... and that ears may not be the only difference between men and elves. Tater why do you say that of "America's view"? do americans have pointed ears? :P

Darth Tater
01-18-2000, 11:40 PM
I don't think so, but thanks to our good friends at Disney everyone thinks elves should

bmilder
01-19-2000, 12:56 AM
LOL Why Disney, Tater? I can't recall any Disney film with elves in it... unless you count the Fair Folk from The Black Cauldron, but that was from the 70s.

anduin
01-19-2000, 04:09 AM
It wasn't Disney.......it was Keebler!!! :P

Elanor
01-19-2000, 07:35 AM
It's an old idea. Elves have always had pointed ears in gaelic/norse/whatever mythology--that's why I think they should in the movie. Tolkien was a scholar in that kind of stuff, and based lots of Middle-Earth on it.

Darth Tater
01-20-2000, 08:03 PM
Personally, I just hate the idea of pointed ears. He never mentioned them, and seeing them just makes me think of Rice Krispy's and the American version of Saint Nicholas.

Fat middle
01-21-2000, 10:24 AM
Mr. Spock, the ugly elf. hehe

anduin
01-22-2000, 01:51 AM
Are you crazy? Spock is sexy!!! :P

Hernalt
01-29-2000, 02:53 PM
Grey Havens has this essay: Did Elves Have Pointed Ears? (http://tolkien.cro.net/elves/ears.html) Xenite.Org has this Fact/ Rumor Roundup (http://www.xenite.org/faqs/lotr_movie/index.html) excerpt: "The Orcs will have pointed ears, thus implying an "Elvish" ancestry. It has also been reported that the Uruks will be black-skinned and the other, "regular" Orcs will be green-skinned and scaly in appearance." It's no great demand on the imagination that Tolkien's Elves originally had different ears than humans. Especially if mankind in general always embellishes what little they see of Elves in the ancient and modern world, so that the question mark in the corner of the eye is eventually conceived as the long pointy-eared guys in Legend w Tom Cruise and Merlin w Sam Neil. But those are only modern impressions, facsimilies, of a race no longer available for study. Same thing with trying to correctly anatomically depict the dinosaurs - not all the subtleties would come across so nicely that another dinosaur would consider it a mirror image. Perhaps our image would even freak out one of Tolkien's Elves! Spock's ears could be considered leaf-shaped, depending on the leaf. Has anyone heard of the process Gene Rodenberry used to design his Vulcans? There've always been likenesses between Tolkien's Elves and the Vulcans as a spacefaring kind of Noldor, but I've never run into any causative links pertaining to Rodenberry in the fashion of Lucas and Joseph Campbell. Eruve? It would make fascinating material, and would tie together three of the greatest achievements in storytelling known to the twentieth century.

Eruve
01-29-2000, 07:33 PM
Sorry Hernalt, I know next to nothing about Star Trek! I can remember watching the series when it was in it's first run (when I was very young-- I have an older brother and sister who were into it) and later in reruns. I know nothing of the behind-the-scenes stuff. It's interesting that you mention the Xenite site. My summary of the "pointed ear" debate from the newsgroups basically recalls the argument of that site's webmaster. He is IMHO the absolute most knowledgable person in all matters Tolkien that I have ever come across. And woe be to anyone who disagrees with him or makes a wrong statement about JRRT! (Don't even mention Balrog wings to him!)

Hernalt
01-29-2000, 08:33 PM
I hear the Prancing Pony has Dime Balrog Wings on Wednesday nights. We should invite him.

Eruve
01-29-2000, 08:42 PM
Mild, spicy or 5 alarm? (Actually he's on the pro-wing side; it's just that the whole debate has been done to death.)

Hernalt
01-29-2000, 10:42 PM
Since they're lit by an inner fire, definately 5 alarm hotwings. Erik Tracy's essay on Balrogs (http://www.daimi.aau.dk/~bouvin/tolkien/balrogs.html) goes a long way towards ruling out literal wings, but I feel perfectly fine thinking that although wings were never mentioned, they may have still had vestigal remnants of wings, a curious permutation of their spirit's embodiment. John Howe's Glorfindel and the Balrog <A HREF="http://soar.berkeley.edu/rolozo/images/howe/balrog.jpg"> <IMG SRC=http://soar.berkeley.edu/rolozo/thumbs/howe/balrog.jpg></A> would suffer grievously if the beastie literally had NO wings, vestigal or otherwise. In Gandalf and the Balrog <A HREF="http://soar.berkeley.edu/rolozo/images/howe/bridge.jpg"> <IMG SRC=http://soar.berkeley.edu/rolozo/thumbs/howe/bridge.jpg></A> Howe does take liberty to solidify Tolkien's "shadows like wings" into a definate fleshly appendage, and I guess people can rightly take offense to it. The word "like" Is the word "like", after all. I'm guessing Ted Nasmith went for the literal interpretation of no wings in Khazad-dum <A HREF="http://soar.berkeley.edu/rolozo/images/nasmith/DBP_Khazadum-dum.jpg"> <IMG SRC=http://soar.berkeley.edu/rolozo/thumbs/nasmith/DBP_Khazadum-dum.jpg></A> But in his Bridge of Khazad-Dum <A HREF="http://soar.berkeley.edu/rolozo/images/nasmith/balrog.jpg"> <IMG SRC=http://soar.berkeley.edu/rolozo/thumbs/nasmith/balrog.jpg></A> Nasmith maintains a careful neutrality, cleaving to Tolkien's distinction of the shadows being "like wings." *sigh* So many choices...

Eruve
01-29-2000, 11:58 PM
Here's my personal take for what it's worth. Balrogs didn't have wings literally but they could envelop themselves in shadow (like Ungoliant) and this shadow might have looked like wings under certain circumstances. Does that straddle the fence enough for you?

Hernalt
01-30-2000, 12:20 AM
Door Number FOUR!!!!

Michael Martinez
02-03-2000, 12:32 AM
Hm. Well, I'm one of the news group regulars who has been deeply immersed in these controversies for the past couple of years. I won't post my lengthy notes on Elvish ears. I've done that at Xenite.Org and other fora. There's almost always someone who tries to pick it apart. Let me say there is NO "canonical" description of Elvish ears. What people usually refer to is an entry for "las-" in "The Etymologies" which was published in THE LOST ROAD AND OTHER WRITINGS (Volume V of THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH). This entry is not "canonical" because, mainly, no two people seem able to agree on what constitutes "canon". I've often had to contend with people who want to bring THE BOOK OF LOST TALES into discussions about THE LORD OF THE RINGS, which didn't exist and wasn't conceived until many years after Tolkien abandoned TBOLT. In THE LORD OF THE RINGS, THE SILMARILLION, and contemporary material which was pubilshed in UNFINISHED TALES, people distinguished between Men and Elves by their eyes, not their ears. If Elvish ears were really different from those of Men, they weren't different enough to merit mention in any of numerous passages which use the eyes as the distinguishing factor. Take that for what it's worth. As for Balrog wings, I've read Erik's essay (and he has read my arguments). He is a very knowledgeable researcher (and the Grey Havens, btw, butchered his essay -- I don't know about the Deutch site given above). I recommend that people visit Erik's own homepage, The Scrolls of Orthanc (http://www.users.cts.com/king/e/erikt/tolkien/tolkien.htm) to be sure they're reading unedited Tracy material. He and I don't agree on much, but he does ground his opinions in solid research. All that said, the fact of the Balrogs' wings was established by Tolkien. The arguments on the news groups arose because some people didn't want to accept the wings and started looking for ways to disprove their "existence" in the text. The most often used argument focuses on the use of the word "like" in the passage where the wings stretch out from behind the Balrog (Tolkien says "and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings"). The problem with this argument (usually referred to as the simile argument) is that it completely disregards the earlier passage a couple of paragraphs up where Tolkien says "what it was could not be seen; it was like a great shadow". Well, the point is that if the wings don't exist because the word "like" is there, then the shadow itself doesn't exist because the word "like" is there. Hence, the pseudo-wings cannot be a shadow because there is no shadow. So the simile argument is self-defeating. Some people are willing to concede the shadow (which would better be called the dark emanation around the Balrog -- it was not a true shadow, which would only exist behind the Balrog with respect to a source of light, but since the Balrog itself was flaming, it was its own source of light) was shaped like wings. I've always maintained that we don't know what the wings were made of. We do know they couldn't have been made of flesh and blood or feathers. The Balrog doesn't have blood, for one thing (we know this because it's a spirit of fire, and flames are seen coming out of its nostrils -- so its body is not a flesh-and-blood body). Some people envision bat-like wings. By that, I think they mean they envision membraneous, leathery-like wings -- not wings extending from arm-and-hand-like appendages. But Tolkien never says the wings are solid, fleshly, or anything other than vast and stretching from wall to wall of the huge cavern. So some people who don't want to concede the wings are there say that the shape of the shadow-stuff -- if that's all Tolkien was referring to -- isn't enough to justify saying the Balrog had wings. The problem with THAT argument is that there is no one type of material from which wings are made. The wings of butterflies, for example, are not made of the same stuff as the wings of birds (although some people would bring up the protoplasm argument, the point is that a butterflie's wings are not interchangeable with a bird's wings). The wings of an airplane are true wings, but they aren't even made of protoplasm. And you could cut wings out of cardboard and put them on your back (many angel costumes consist of wings made of cloth and wire, for example). A wing is a thing shaped like a wing. That's the best definition one can offer, because as soon as you go with "a wing is an appendage of a bird or other flying creature" you must rationalize how anything else can be called a wing. Tolkien's reference to the wings on the Moria Balrog was very specific. There was nothing unusual in the way he presented them. He simply unveiled them gradually to provide a transition from vagueness to clarity, to share with the reader the uncertainty and growing realization that the characters experienced. Legolas recognized the Balrog for what it was immediately. Gandalf didn't acknowledge it until Legolas cried out. Finally, some people point to THE BOOK OF LOST TALES and "The Fall of Gondolin". Without missing a beat they skip over the mechanical dragons, the great differences between the world of "The Fall of Gondolin", the fact there were no Edain, and many other significant discrepancies and say, "But the Balrogs of 'The Fall of Gondolin' didn't have wings." That's right. The Balrogs of "The Fall of Gondolin" didn't have wings. Nor were they fallen Maiar. Nor did any of them engage in 11-day battles with Maiar as the Balrog of Moria engaged in an 11-day battle with Gandalf. Nor were they surrounded by the great dark emanation as the Balrog of Moria was surrounded, nor use magic as the Balrog of Moria did, etc. The early Balrogs were simply different creatures. Tolkien's conception of them evolved considerably. THE BOOK OF LOST TALES simply doesn't offer any insights into the creatures of THE LORD OF THE RINGS. It's unfortunate that Christopher based "Of Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin" in THE SILMARILLION on THE BOOK OF LOST TALES, but he really didn't have any other material to work with. "The Fal of Gondolin" was the one story Tolkien never really updated. His only attempt, "Of Tuor and His Coming to Gondolin", left off with Tuor looking out upon Tumladen. Nonetheless, some people make the mistake of assuming that since Christopher did base the later story on the early one (and "The Fall of Gondolin" was the very first BOLT story Tolkien ever wrote) then the Balrogs of the earlier story must be the same as the Balrog of Moria. That simply isn't the case. We can review the early manuscripts for "The Bridge of Khazad-dum" in THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH and see how Tolkien changed the description of the Balrogs. We can also examine the history of the Maiar and see that Tolkien brought them into the mythology during the 1940s before he was finished working on THE LORD OF THE RINGS. So the Balrog of Moria evolved under his hand from a creature of Morgoth into a fallen Maia, a creature merely corrupted by Morgoth. Hence, the published Balrog differs considerably in nature and physical description from the unpublished Balrogs of "The Fall of Gondolin". There is therefore no benefit to using THE BOOK OF LOST TALES to analyze the Balrog encountered in THE LORD OF THE RINGS. Anyway, that turned out to be longer than I intended, but I hope that sheds some light on the controversies, if it doesn't settle any questions for you. :)

Darth Tater
02-04-2000, 07:30 PM
WOW! For my opinion on wings see my pic in the Fan Art thread.

easterlinge
05-17-2001, 02:16 PM
Actually I conceived the Balrog being like a shadow creature, sort of like a blown up version of the "gebbeth" from Ursula le Guin's "A Wizard of Earthsea". (Or rather the gebbeth was a shrunk Balrog?)

It has wings because it wants to have wings. Howzat?

I think I was more spooked by the le Guin's gebbeth than by the Balrog.

Just playing Necromancer and bringing a long dwad topic back to life ;)

Inoldonil
05-18-2001, 02:05 AM
There are two points generally used by the 'Elves have pointed ears' supporters.

1) In an early letter of Tolkien's, soon after the publication or just before the publication of The Hobbit, found naturally in the Tolkien Letters, JRR Tolkien says the ears of Hobbits were slightly pointed, and Elvish.

and

2) In a partly illegible etymological note on the element 'las' in the Etymologies to The Lost Road and Other Writings in the History of Middle-earth series, Quendian ears are stated to be more pointed than that of Men.

However, I don't feel these to be very good arguments. If I presented these facts to you without any elaboration, many of you, not searching for anymore, would probably be inclined to say 'okay, Elves have pointed ears'. But this is out of context. That famous (or notorious) letter was an explanation of how to draw Bilbo, for the use of American artists. They would not know what Tolkien's Elves look like anymore than they did Hobbits. Tolkien must therefore be referring to Shakespeare's Elves, who's name was spelled with a 'v,' like Tolkien's, and who did in fact have pointed ears.

The real bombshell is the Etymological note. Those Etymologies go with the older mythology. All the names of all the kindreds of Elves were different, and the entire mythos was alien. Eressea was England, Yavanna was an Elvish Queen, and so forth. In all other books there is no passage to them having ears, and they are actually implied not to have. In Of Tuor and his Coming to Gondolin, found in Unfinished Tales, two Sindarin Elves (I think that is who they were, the same who later visited Orodreth and Turin) recognized Tuor as a Man and not an Elf because of his eyes. A difference of ear-shape would have been much more apparent.

Supposing they did have pointed ears lands them in some absurdities. In the Narn-I-Hin-Hurin, found in Unfinished Tales, Sador the serving-man of Dor Lomin tells a young Turin that his little sister looks very much like an Elven child, for Elves and Men develop in much the same way until they hit their coming of age, 20 at the time, I think, and then the Elves slow down in aging and the especial fairness is more noted. If you take their close resemblance into account in youth, you would be inclined to believe Elves don't grow their pointed ears until much older. But there are other examples. The existence of Elvish blood in Mannish veins must imply a varying shape in ears if Elves have pointed ears. But Numenoreans of such kinds were never noted for their ears, when confused with Elves it was because of their fairness and the light of their eyes (this is stated a few times).

Tolkien notes (forgive me for bringing it up) in the Appendices to Of Galadriel and Celeborn (which is confused and confusing) that the House of the Princes of Dol Amroth were noted in their Elvishness because of a beardlessness. It is said there that all the Eldar did not grow beards. Now, to keep things clear, although this is also a controversy, Tolkien put a beard on Cirdan, a long silver one, I believe. If he remembered he had, he would have undoubtedly have felt bound by it like everything else published in his life. My point is that in noting the Elvish strain in them he did not turn to a very significant difference, a biological one in ears, but created a much more subtle one, beardlessness, which was not, I stress, correct.

Moreover, Tolkien said Elves and Men are biologically the same.

I haven't read all of the other posts, forgive me if these points are covered.

I might add that not too long ago I believed Elves had pointed ears. I got in a big debate with Michael Martinez over it, and thinking about what he said afterwards, my mind opened up. I then began to look at things a little differently, and realize the truth of his words. I soon came to know 'yeah, I guess they didn't have pointed ears'. It was the last drop of poison in my veins from David Day Wormtongue, released by the good Gandalf Martinez.

[edited: I read the others. I was a little redundant, but I think this post still serves its purpose.

As for Balrogs. I've already gone back and forth about it a while ago.

I will only say two things. I believe Balrogs had wings. Not animal like wings, that is, not like John Howe's Balrogish wings, but 'shadowy' wings.

I'd like to relate a little story to you all. It may be typical. I was talking to my dad one day. My dad at the time was rereading the Lord of the Rings after being away from it for something like ten years. He was rediscovering it. He's not a purist or anything, he doesn't study it, he just enjoys reading it. This particular day, I believe he had soon gotten done reading The Bridge of Khazad-dum. He made a passing reference to 'winged Balrog' or something along those lines.

I stopped him. 'You know dad, there's a big controversy about that.' 'About what?', he says. 'About the wings. Some people don't think they had any.' He looked at me skeptically, 'But it says "and its wings were spread from wall to wall" ' he says, and he exhibited his outspread arms as evidence. 'I know dad, I know.'

[SECOND EDIT: :lol: I just read your post, easterlinge! I wish I had known I was posting on a year old thread. I was wondering how so many responses could have piled up over night!]

easterlinge
05-18-2001, 09:10 AM
:lol:

I didn't know anyone would fall for it!!

Actually some of the old posts are interesting. Informative for us newer guys and gals.

Samwise of the shire
06-01-2001, 05:09 PM
I have never pictured Elves with pointed ears,I picture them as tall and willowy with green,grey or blue eyes that always reflect the stars so the green or grey or blue eyes would be dark green,grey,or blue with little sparkly lights in them,they have dark brown hair(almost black)and they normaly dress in what ever color they grew up around like if the elf grew up in Mirkwood he'd wear dark dark green with some brown and his eyes would be green shot with light brown,if he grew up near the sea he'd dress in a stormy grey and he'd have grey eyes with a bit of green,but no pointed ears(unlike the LOTR movie elves and hobbits who have ears that are big enough to be sonar equipment)and I have never pictured the Balrogs with wings,they're dark and sinewy and they can wrap a dark cloud of evil and fear around them and it's that cloud what LOOKS like wings.
Sammy

olorin7
06-19-2001, 07:04 PM
If the balrog did have wings why did it fall in the chasm at Moria? Sure it was fighting with Gandalf, but why not fly out of the chasm and let the wizard fall to the bottom?

Inoldonil
06-19-2001, 08:24 PM
With or without wings he could probably 'fly out', as a Maia who's form is not altogether constant I doubt he needs wings to fly. Or maybe there being a great man shape in all that darkness he was more physical and wouldn't be able to without wings. But the wings themselves are not the appendages attached to birds. They came out of the shadow, and are obviously of it. Maybe even with those he couldn't fly. With the Ainur, their form is a testimony to their personality. Does Yavanna really need to stand as a tree under heaven? The Balrog doesn't fly with the wings on the bridge, so one must wonder what they are needed for anyway. They aren't, they are not a means, they are an expression of its personality. It did have wings, when first the Fellowship is deciphering them, it is 'like wings', and then a little later they are called wings; 'and its wings were spread from wall to wall'.

In The Great River the winged shadow that is the Nazgul'a steed reminds of Gimli of the Balrog.

But even so, there's no evidence he was after anyone but Gandalf, maybe he specifically wanted Gandalf, and destroying him was the goal. They fell an awful long time, maybe he was keeping them aloft. Curious, that they would be battling as they fell, difficult to my mind when you imagine the realistic speed they must have been going, heading down that chasm.

olorin7
06-20-2001, 08:44 PM
the reason i feel that the balrog would fly out of the chasm instead of falling is that i feel that the balrog, being a maia, would be able to feel the presence of the ring that frodo is carrying. Although the balrog would not be totally under its dominion such as the nazgul were i think that he would be able to detect it and it would be more important than Gandalf to the balrog. Point well taken on the fact that the maia fall to a form that represents them and that the wings would not necessarily enable the balrog to fly.

Inoldonil
06-21-2001, 12:24 AM
If he did sense it he wouldn't be under its dominion at all, he would be tempted by it. Is that what you meant? But I don't know that any Maiar could sense the presence of the Ring (save Sauron, in certain instances). Where does it say that? Anyway we don't have any examples to work from, we don't (or I don't) know if Gandalf could sense the Ring and Sauron's case is obvious. What other Maiar are we to work from? From Gandalf we can't draw any conclusions about the Balrog.

It is clear, however, that if Gandalf could sense the One Ring, he could not sense that it was the One Ring. As the Tale of Years show, he didn't even suspect it to be the Ring until the day of Bilbo's Farewell Party. Then he had to do research to confirm his suspicion. So if the Balrog is like Gandalf in any way, he wouldn't have known the One Ring was before him.

The main argument people come up with is that the Balrog served Sauron, but we don't have any evidence of that. The Orcs there were sent from him (Sauron), Sauron seems to at least know about the Balrog ... it seems unlikely to me he would have been able to become its master, and even assuming they formed an alliance of some sort would Sauron really have trusted the thing with the knowledge of the key to world dominance? I doubt it.

easterlinge
06-21-2001, 05:06 AM
"The Balrog doesn't fly with the wings on the bridge, so one must wonder what they are needed for anyway. They aren't, they are not a means, they are an expression of its personality. "

Sort of like the dodo, you mean, Inoldonil? Dodos can't fly either. Wonder what its wings were for? :lol:

And like Balrogs, dodos are extinct.

Maybe the Balrog didn't fly because the wings were too small.

Or maybe because Gandalf prevented it from flying. I once saw a documentary where 2 eagles duelled each other: they didn't fly very well at all. In fact they tumbled to the ground, and broke away just in time.

So maybe the Balrog had trouble flying and fighting at the same time.

HTML is not allowed in the forum. Bah!!

Inoldonil
06-22-2001, 03:30 AM
Sort of like the dodo, you mean, Inoldonil? Dodos can't fly either. Wonder what its wings were for?

:lol: point well taken. But the Dodos and other birds like them supposedly had evolved from a species that did fly, but as they changed they lossed the need (but not the wings).

Maybe the Balrog didn't fly because the wings were too small.

That's impossible. The wings weren't constant, it must be understood. It didn't have any wings until after Gandalf spoke about the Flame of Udun and the Secret Fire. Then the 'fire in it seemed to die', but the shadow grew and stretched out 'like two vast wings', emphasis mine. Eventually 'its wings were spread from wall to wall'. Those are gigantic wings.

Or maybe because Gandalf prevented it from flying.

We've read about the confrontation of Gandalf and the Balrog, in detail on the Bridge, which is the fight concerned in my comment that you quoted. The Balrog leaped full on the Bridge, there was a clash of swords, Boromir and Aragorn rushed to help Gandalf, Gandalf broke the bridge, The Balrog fell, he took Gandalf with him. Gandalf didn't prevent him from flying!

Then we have Gandalf's brief recount of what happened afterwards. They fell for a long time, and Gandalf hewed him and was clutched and burned, they fought in the air, then they plunged into extremely cold water, and the Balrog became a thing of slime. The fought a bit more, then the Balrog fled up the Stair, Gandalf followed up, up to Durin's Tower and the pinnacle of the Mountains of Moria. There was a magical battle up there, with lightning and flame, and Gandalf cast him down and killed him, before dying himself.

Where's the flight prevention to enter?

I can see where the flight can come in, in the fall down the Chasm, as they fought in the air and fell for a very long time.

easterlinge
06-25-2001, 08:13 AM
" point well taken. But the Dodos and other birds like them supposedly had evolved from a species that did fly, but as they changed they lossed the need (but not the wings)."

Maybe Balrogs could fly once, long ago.... but became altered (by Morgoth?) and lost the ability? In which case the wings are a vestige from the time they could fly... like the dodos and kiwis...

Or maybe the Balrog of Moria spent so much time underground it forgot how to fly, its wings atrophied from lack of use.