|
Post by infernal on May 26, 2004 9:42:49 GMT -5
well I have been wondering about this a lot, it seems most logical to me that they didn't have wings.. but in the book there are several clues that indicate that they do. And in the film Durin's Bane has wings, what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by fingolfin on May 26, 2004 10:19:09 GMT -5
They have wings, read in a thread on MT
|
|
Alatar_theIstar
Full Member
From clan TBR. Well well... look at that! Uncle Bob came to visit with his cute lill' horse 8)=
Posts: 324
|
Post by Alatar_theIstar on May 26, 2004 11:23:21 GMT -5
that's again a question that tolkien didnt answer straighly, but gave some gluess . I would say they havent
|
|
|
Post by HDK on May 26, 2004 12:36:50 GMT -5
kk read this it should answer some questions,
The heart of the debate lies in The Fellowship of the Ring II 5, The Bridge of Khazad-dûm. This chapter is built around the Fellowship's disastrous encounter with the Balrog known only as Durin's Bane, the same creature that had driven the Dwarves from their ancient home centuries before. In particular, two references give rise to the discussion. The first describes the Balrog from Gandalf's point of view:
[1] "His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings." The Fellowship of the Ring II 5 The Bridge of Khazad-dûm <br>
On its own, this isn't particularly contentious. The Balrog's dark 'shadow' has assumed a form that appears at least somewhat winglike. The fact that it is explicitly 'like wings' means that this can't literally describe real wings. The problems start, though, with another reference that appears two paragraphs later:
[2] "...suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall..." The Fellowship of the Ring II 5 The Bridge of Khazad-dûm <br>
These are quite probably the most hotly debated words Tolkien ever wrote. This seems strange at first, because in fact most people agree that the meaning isn't particularly ambiguous, and that it's fairly obvious what the statement means. The dispute begins, though, with a curious fact: like an optical illusion, this quotation has two obvious interpretations. Whatever you think it means, and however sure you are, there are plenty of people who see it quite differently.
To one group of readers, 'its wings were spread from wall to wall' (2) relates to the immediately preceding 'the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings' (1). To them, it just reinforces the preceding statement, and says nothing about any other kind of wings. On the opposite side of the debate, 'its wings were spread' (2) is not related to the preceding statement at all. Instead, it's a definite reference to the Balrog's real, physical wings.
The debate normally focuses on arguments about which of these two obvious interpretations is the correct one. It's probable, though, that neither is explicitly correct: how you read the passage depends on what you already presume a Balrog to look like. We're not trying to draw any definite conclusions at this point, just to show that the structure of the sentence will bear either interpretation. One way of doing this is to replace the disputed 'wings' with terms that have a more certain status.
Let's start with 'arms'. There's absolutely no question that Balrogs had arms - it's so obvious that it seems odd to even mention it. Now, imagine that Tolkien had written 'the shadow about it reached out like two vast arms'. That's still obviously a simile, just like the real text (1). If that's followed shortly afterwards by 'its arms were spread', it seems natural to read this second reference as referring to its real arms, not its shadow-arms, even though we've just been told that it had 'arms' of shadow. This is how the pro-wings faction sees the text, because they assume that Balrogs have real wings, just as unquestionably as real arms.
We can simulate the alternative view with 'tentacles'. There's absolutely no evidence for Balrog tentacles, and its safe to presume that they didn't form any part of a Balrog's anatomy. Once again, 'the shadow about it reached out like two vast tentacles' reads without a problem as a simile. Now, though, when it's followed by 'its tentacles were spread', the natural interpretation is slightly different. We know for sure that there are no 'real' Balrog tentacles, so the statement reads much more easily as referring back to the preceding simile: it must mean 'tentacles of shadow'. This is the anti-wings position: because they assume that Balrogs have no real wings, they naturally see 'its wings' as an extension of the earlier passage.
You might not agree with both of these interpretations, but its fair bet that the one you do agree with is the one you already presume is correct. That's all we're arguing here - that the interpretation depends on an underlying presumption about Balrog wings, whether for or against.
Since there doesn't seem to be anything decisive in the sentence structure itself, it follows that arguments based on this passage alone must be circular. On the one side: 'Assuming Balrogs have real wings, then the passage must be meant literally, therefore Balrogs have real wings'. On the other: 'Assuming Balrogs have no real wings, then the passage must be meant figuratively, therefore Balrogs have no real wings'. As far as this passage is concerned, whatever you assume about Balrog wings inevitably turns out to be true.
This isn't much help, but fortunately 'its wings were spread from wall to wall' (2) isn't the only evidence to consider. Let's move on to look at the rest of the cases for, and against, real Balrog wings.
The Case For Balrog Wings Having established that 'its wings were spread from wall to wall' (2) can't realistically be used as an argument for (or against) real wings, we can proceed to see what evidence actually can be produced.
Argument One: Its Wings Were Spread From Wall to Wall
It's a characteristic of the debate that this resilient passage reappears very regularly in pro-wing arguments, whatever counterarguments are put up against it. It's only fair, then, to allow it another quick airing before moving on. Those who propose it as proof consider that it is unambiguously literal, and cannot be interpreted otherwise.
This position doesn't seem to stand up to detailed scrutiny. It isn't clear, for example, how a passage that has been subject to years of debate can realistically be described as unambiguous. Much more interesting, though, is the claim that it must be intended literally. This presumably means that Tolkien would have written 'its wings of shadow were spread...', or something of the kind, if that is what he had meant. Consider the following, though:
[3] "Gandalf came flying down the steps and fell to the ground in the midst of the Company" The Fellowship of the Ring II 5 The Bridge of Khazad-dûm <br>
This occurs just a few pages before Gandalf's encounter with the Balrog, and of course itsmeaning is obvious: Gandalf has been thrown down the steps by a force from above. This is a metaphor: nobody would claim that Gandalf literally 'flew'. The text, though, doesn't say 'Gandalf seemed to come flying', it says unequivocally that he 'came flying'. Those who insist on a literal reading of one passage, must logically insist on a literal reading of this passage too. The only consistent conclusion is that, if 'its wings were spread from wall to wall' (2) proves that Balrogs have real wings, then 'Gandalf came flying down the steps' (3) proves that Gandalf not only could fly, but chose that moment to show off his talent.
|
|
|
Post by HDK on May 26, 2004 12:38:26 GMT -5
Argument Two: ‘With Winged Speed’<br> Given the depth of debate on the issue, it may come as a surprise that 'Its wings were spread...' (2) is the only definite canonical evidence for Balrog wings. There is, though, a passage in The History of Middle-earth that is often produced as supporting evidence. Here it is:
[4] "Swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum, and they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire." The History of Middle-earth Volume X (Morgoth's Ring), The Later Quenta Silmarillion: Of the Rape of the Silmarils
'They' are the Balrogs who rushed to save Melkor from Ungoliant immediately after his return to Middle-earth. This text does not appear in the published Silmarillion: it belongs to an unpublished variant, often claimed to have canonical priority over the published edition. To avoid unnecessary debate about canon and priority, we'll assume it does have priority for the purposes of this argument.
Regardless of its canonical status, though, it isn't certain how this represents 'proof' of any kind: 'with winged speed' is unavoidably just a metaphor for 'very quickly'. Actually, there does seem to be some disagreement about the metaphorical status of this phrase, so we'll take a moment to consult the dictionarry:
[5] "metaphor n. application of name or descriptive term or phrase to an object or action to which it is imaginatively but not literally applicable" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English
In other words, unless 'speed' can literally have wings (which it clearly can't), 'with winged speed' is a metaphor.
Just as before, we can clarify the structure of the sentence by extracting the Balrogs (whose nature is under question), and replacing them with more definite terms. First, imagine that the paragraph is about Eagles (which we know have wings and can fly), rather than Balrogs: there's no question that '[the Eagles] passed with winged speed over Hithlum' makes perfect sense. To try the opposite argument, we'll replace the Eagles with something that definitely doesn't have wings and can't fly: horsemen, say. This results in '[the horsemen] passed with winged speed over Hithlum'. Maybe it's a little more poetic, but it clearly isn't nonsense.
This is another case where the argument only serves to highlight the presumptions of its reader. If you already believe in Balrog wings, then 'with winged speed' might well seem to refer to them, but in fact there's nothing here that demands them.
Summing Up
The positive argument in favour of real Balrog wings at least has the merit of brevity. Essentially, it is that 'its wings were spread from wall to wall' (2) and 'with winged speed' (4) can only possibly be interpreted as literal references to actual wings. As we've tried to show, though, there's no objective reason for drawing this conclusion. The pro-wings interpretation works if, and only if, you already assume that Balrog wings exist.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Case Against Balrog Wings If there's no undeniable case for Balrog wings, it's important to realize that neither is there any undeniable evidence against them. Instead, the contrary argument is based on a range of objections: references that apparently contradict the idea of Balrog wings. Of these, there are two particularly strong examples.
Objection One: Balrogs Don't Fly
There is no point anywhere in Tolkien's work where he describes a Balrog as flying. Even in situations where it would be a huge advantage to take to the air, the Balrogs remain earthbound. To illustrate, consider Gandalf's encounter with Durin's Bane. This Balrog faces two obstacles, a fiery fissure, and then a chasm crossed by a narrow bridge. These should present no problem to a winged creature, but its reaction is instructive.
[6] "Then with a rush it leaped across the fissure." The Fellowship of the Ring II 5 The Bridge of Khazad-dûm <br>
...and then...
"It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge..." The Fellowship of the Ring II 5 The Bridge of Khazad-dûm <br>
Later, that same Balrog finds itself on a mountain-top, fighting for its life. According to Gandalf's report of the incident:
[7] "I threw down my enemy, and he fell from the high place, and broke the mountain-side where he smote it in his ruin." The Two Towers III 5 The White Rider
If he could fly, the Balrog could easily have saved itself. Instead, he crashes through the air to his doom. Durin's Bane isn't the only non-flying Balrog, either:
[8] "Many are the songs that 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." Quenta Silmarillion 23 Of Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin
The obvious question is: if Balrogs have real wings, why don't they use them?
There are two counterarguments. First, it is often suggested that 'with winged speed' (4) is a unique case where Balrogs are described as flying. We've already considered this point - it needn't detain us here.
The more common counterargument is that, in each case, the Balrogs were somehow prevented from using their wings. According to this position, Durin's Bane leaps the fissure and steps onto the bridge not because he has no wings, but because his wings were so vast that they were cramped and unusable. Against the two cases of Balrogs falling from mountains, it's suggested that they were exhausted from fighting, or their wings were somehow damaged. It's also sometimes put forward that Balrogs had real wings, but couldn't use them at all, or could only glide short distances rather than actually fly. This counterargument takes many forms, but all have one feature in common - once again, it presumes that the wings must exist.
There is, of course, a much simpler explanation for the Balrogs' apparent inability to fly. If we take the position that they just didn't have wings, the entire problem vanishes.
|
|
|
Post by HDK on May 26, 2004 12:39:47 GMT -5
Objection Two: The Question of Scale
How big is a Balrog? If we follow the pro-wings side of the debate, and assume that it had real wings, it's possible to come up at least some minimum figures. This is because of the classic 'its wings were spread from wall to wall' (2), which means that its wingspan must be at least the width of the hall in which it was standing. What do we know about the hall itself?
[9] "Before them was another cavernous hall. It was loftier and far longer than the one in which they had slept." [10] "He turned left and sped across the smooth floor of the hall. The distance was greater than it had looked." [11] "...a slender bridge of stone, without kerb or rail, that spanned the chasm with one curving spring of fifty feet." All from The Fellowship of the Ring II 5 The Bridge of Khazad-dûm <br>
The hall is gigantic. If the chasm is fifty feet wide (11), then the entire hall must be at least several hundred feet long. A 'chasm' is by definition longer than it is wide, and the chasm's length defines the width of the hall. So, we can derive a fairly reliable minimum width somewhere in the region of seventy-five to one hundred feet. This is supported by the text, which tells us that the hall was so wide that it needed pillars down the centre to support the roof:
[12] "Down the centre stalked a double line of towering pillars. They were carved like boles of mighty trees whose boughs upheld the roof..." The Fellowship of the Ring II 5 The Bridge of Khazad-dûm <br>
If the Balrog's wings were real, and literally spread 'from wall to wall' (2), its minimum wingspan is also somewhere approaching one hundred feet. This gives us a Balrog the size of a house, and remember that these are minimum values - it might be even bigger. Many would accept this without a problem - the idea of a gigantic Balrog is quite common, and it's often depicted as being thirty feet high or more, which is consistent with these estimates.
This is an important point, so we'll emphasise it. If the Balrog's wings are real, it follows necessarily that it must have been a monstrous creature with the wingspan of a small airliner.
The objection this raises is quite significant: it's very hard to explain how this behemoth had lived for more than a thousand years in an underground city designed for Dwarves. As a specific example, consider the Chamber of Mazarbul, which appears just before the Company's encounter with the Balrog. There's plenty of textual evidence about the entrance to this room. For example:
[13] "...orcs one after another leaped into the chamber." The Fellowship of the Ring II 5 The Bridge of Khazad-dûm<br>(our italics)
...and, a moment later, they...
[14] "...clustered in the doorway." The Fellowship of the Ring II 5 The Bridge of Khazad-dûm <br>
This is obviously a fairly narrow opening. Somehow, though, the Balrog manages to follow the orcs into the Chamber through this entrance. If a Balrog is built on the huge scale we've just discussed, it could not possibly have used this narrow entrance.
The logic of this seems inescapable: we have to scale down the Balrog to get him through the door. He can still be of 'a great height' (2) - say ten feet tall or so - but he can't realistically be much larger than this. This idea is supported to an extent by this description from the The History of Middle-earth:
[15] "[the Balrog] strode to the fissure, no more than man-high yet terror seemed to go before it." The History of Middle-earth Volume VII (The Treason of Isengard), X The Mines of Moria II: The Bridge (our italics)
This is a rejected draft, so it can't be put forward as any kind of proof. It does give some insight, though, into the kind of scale that Tolkien had in mind for the Balrog. It's also borne out by the fact that he had to 'leap' (6) across the fissure, and that he stepped onto a bridge (7) so narrow that Dwarves could only cross it in single file. These are the actions of a more-or-less man-sized creature, not a giant.
The question of scale is a serious objection to real Balrog wings. If 'its wings were spread from wall to wall' (2) literally refers to real wings, then the Balrog must have been gigantic. For it to get into the Chamber of Mazarbul, though, it can't have been gigantic. If the Balrog isn't gigantic, then 'its wings were spread from wall to wall' (2) can't refer to real wings.
For the anti-wings faction, this is probably as close to a 'proof' as it's possible to get.
Summing Up
These are by no means the only objections to real Balrog wings, but they're probably the strongest. Most others are circumstantial in nature and don't really advance the argument far (for example, 'imagine a creature with huge wings, spread wide, trying to handle a whirling whip of flame').
The two major objections, though, are very significant. Why don't Balrogs use their wings, if they have them? How does a house-sized Balrog get through an orc-sized doorway? These awkward questions only arise if Balrogs have real wings - if we assume that they don't, it's easy to escape these inconsistencies.
It's probably fair to say that there is no incontrovertible evidence for real wings, and that there 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.
|
|
|
Post by HDK on May 26, 2004 12:41:16 GMT -5
The Summary (for people who cant be bothered to read all of that)
It's probably fair to say that there is no incontrovertible evidence for real wings, and that there 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.
|
|
|
Post by Kieron on May 26, 2004 13:49:27 GMT -5
read that ages ago and to be honoust i like the idea of balrogs having wings and so have always imagined they do....but does it really matter if they do or dont?
|
|
|
Post by fingolfin on May 26, 2004 13:54:24 GMT -5
Nice HDK Imo they got wings, But I don't know if they can use 'em to fly with
|
|
|
Post by HDK on May 26, 2004 14:43:01 GMT -5
well one of the most important quotes in that text is this i think
"suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall..." The Fellowship of the Ring II 5 The Bridge of Khazad-dûm<br> this is the main sentence that the "balrogs DO have wings" argument is based on, and if you read this literally then yes balrogs do have wings.But tolkien wasnt always litteral
"Gandalf came flying down the steps and fell to the ground in the midst of the Company" The Fellowship of the Ring II 5 The Bridge of Khazad-dûm <br> If u read the first quote literally and you believe balrogs have wings then you must also believe that gandalf can fly?right?
Maybe balrogs do have wings but they almost definatly cant fly,why did trolls have to place slabs of rock near the bridge of khazad dhum so durins bane could walk across the flames?why didnt he jus fly across?why didnt the balrog fly away when he fell off the bridge?why didnt he fly away when he was battling with gandalf at the top of the Endless Stair?Why didnt the balrog that faught with Glofindel on the high peak of Gondolin fly away?
|
|
|
Post by HDK on May 26, 2004 14:44:34 GMT -5
And inf there should be another option on that poll "impossible to tell" because that is the answer, the argument weighs heavily on the "balrogs DONT have wings" side but that doesnt mean its a fact...
|
|
|
Post by infernal on May 27, 2004 9:04:56 GMT -5
yeah I know I was gonna post that thing from glyphweb after some ppl had said their opinion but you came before me ;D
|
|
|
Post by fingolfin on May 27, 2004 9:32:26 GMT -5
Well Imo Balrogs have wings, but they can't fly with them. They are to big and fat for that ;D And when Gandalf came flying down the stairs in Moria, he was just thrown away ;D he fell of the stairs, he wasn't really 'flying'
|
|
|
Post by HDK on May 27, 2004 10:07:51 GMT -5
omfg fing thats the whole point
gandalf cant fly it was a metaphor and when he came "flying down the stairs" we know he wasnt actually flying but tolkien didnt say 'Gandalf seemed to come flying'n he said gandalf CAME flying
and ofc gandalf cant fly, but now read this sentence "...suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall..."
If you read the other sentence about gandalf as a metaphor then this sentence could also be used as a metaphor and tolkien was just echoing what he said a couple of lines previously
His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings."
now do you get me fing?
|
|
|
Post by fingolfin on May 28, 2004 2:23:26 GMT -5
Hmm I think I'll get it....
He has wings, but he can't use them to fly. In the TT when Gandalf and the Balrog are falling and when they almost reach the water, you see the balrog trying to fly, by using his wings, but it doesn't help him, he keeps falling with Gandyman
Link from the almighty MT-forum: www.minastirith.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000544
That Fingolfin isn't me, I just used the same Avater
|
|