• Welcome to The Tolkien Forum! Connect with fellow Tolkien enthusiasts and join a community that is over two decades old, and still going strong. We look forward to meeting you.  Register

📊Poll: Do Balrogs have wings?

Do Balrogs have wings?

  • Yes

    Votes: 261 64.6%
  • No

    Votes: 141 34.9%
  • Maybe (Wing agnostic)

    Votes: 2 0.5%

  • Total voters
    404
balrog-wings.jpg
 
Hm. Then simply apply this to the famous
Tal-Elmar passage. I triple dog dare ya.

14,500+ Three Dogs Stock Photos, Pictures & Royalty-Free ...


:)
Well if Tolkien said that sails were like wings, he's using simile/metaphor/poetic expression, which is no problem at all. It's the real meaning of the sentence and therefore the simplest as well. When metaphor is used, that's the simplest explanation; where there is no metaphor, and you graft one on, that's not the simplest explanation and is, in fact, incorrect.

Where Tolkien uses simile/metaphor (which he does extensively) is entirely appropriate to the context of the sentence; where he writes a plain old sentence with no use of simile/metaphor that is entirely appropriate too.

The problems occur when we mix these things up...
 
I was going to double-dog-dare. . . but mostly for the alliteration.

Doubling down on dogs catching treats
 
"Greater than great houses are the ships of the Go-hilleg, and they bear store of men and goods, and yet are wafted by the winds; for the Sea-men spread great cloths like wings to catch the airs, and bind them to tall poles like trees of the forest. Thus they will come to the shore, where there is shelter, or as nigh as they may; and then they will send forth smaller boats laden with goods, and strange things both beautiful and useful such as our folk covet. These they will sell to us for small price, or give as gifts, feigning friendship, and pity for our need; and they will dwell a while, and spy out the land and the numbers of the folk, and then go. And if they do not return, men should be thankful. For if they come again it is in another guise. In greater numbers they come then: two ships or more together, stuffed with Men and not goods, and ever one of the accursed ships hath black wings. For that is the Ship of the Dark, and in it they bear away evil booty, captives packed like beasts, the fairest women and children, or young men unblemished, and that is their end. Some say they are eaten for meat; and others that they are slain with torment on the black stones in the worship of the Dark. Both maybe are true. The foul wings of the Sea-men have not been seen in these waters for many a year. . ." A Certain Author
So I read this passage, as I read the Moria Balrog passage, and indeed any other passage quite simply: I look at what I think the author is telling me. Really simple.

Now this passage contains multiple uses of simile/metaphor (I can never remember the exact terminology) where Tolkien is obviously using the word 'wings' for 'sails'; nicely done, very poetic, no problems here at all.

Context is king here, as everywhere else; he introduces the simile, then reinforces it more than once. This allows him to end up with us knowing that the 'foul wings' of the Sea-men don't refer to actual wings but to the sails of their ships. Extended simile at its best.

What about the fact that he refers to the ships as 'greater than houses'? Are we always meant to have this image in mind, as we are about the sails? Well no, as he only mentions it once. That simile belongs to the first sentence alone. After that the ships are simply that - ships, not ships greater than great houses.

So the Moria Balrog can indeed have shadow-like wings or wings-of shadow in one sentence but this doesn't mean that in any following sentence the wings cannot actually just be wings.

Are the fairest women and children always to be seen as beasts? Is that what is eaten or sacrificed later, animal meat? Of course not, the simile describes their situation on what we could call a slave-ship, and later on we know that it is men women and children who will suffer.

Simile in its place, plain descriptive sentences also in its place.
 
So I read this passage, as I read the Moria Balrog passage, and indeed any other passage quite simply: I look at what I think the author is telling me. Really simple.

Okay, simple. Good start.

Now this passage contains multiple uses of simile/metaphor (I can never remember the exact terminology) where Tolkien is obviously using the word 'wings' for 'sails'; nicely done, very poetic, no problems here at all.

Huzzah!

Context is king here, as everywhere else; he introduces the simile, then reinforces it more than once. This allows him to end up with us knowing that the 'foul wings' of the Sea-men don't refer to actual wings but to the sails of their ships. Extended simile at its best.

Double Huzzah! The word wings read/understood in light of the previous simile!

Indeed, quite simple.

What about the fact that he refers to the ships as 'greater than houses'? Are we always meant to have this image in mind, as we are about the sails? Well no, as he only mentions it once. That simile belongs to the first sentence alone. After that the ships are simply that - ships, not ships greater than great houses.

In my opinion to say that certain ships are greater than great houses means I will imagine these ships as greater than great houses wherever and whenever they are.

So the Moria Balrog can indeed have shadow-like wings or wings-of shadow in one sentence but this doesn't mean that in any following sentence the wings cannot actually just be wings.

I'm not saying that it can't mean actual wings, but to my mind, you've just shown us how a simple reading can interpret the Moria passage: indeed as the Sea-men didn't sprout actual flesh-wings >
so too (not necessarily) with the Balrog < here with the word "wings" being understood in light (or unlight) of the previous simile.

🐾
 
Last edited:
Wow, this discussion is still going on. For decades, now, to say nothing of the 54 pages of this particular post (which doesn't exist in isolation.)

I would like to submit a new postulate - though I do believe it's also very old.

"To each his/her own."

Know why? Because - well - so it is, has been, and always will be.

(I must put a rush order on the reconstruction of The Great Halls of Speculation, which burned down in fairly recent history, and has been under reconstruction ever since.)

Of course - no "side", or participant, in the discussion feels they are speculating. It's 'just obvious' to them all, whichever small chunk of wood they're floating on in the vast ocean of thought-drops upon the matter. And they all support their choce with what they feel is an appropriate angle/take/outlook/view supporting their personal choice.

"So let it be written, so let it be done." (Yul Brynner, The Ten Commandments.)

Funny thing about Balrogs and wings - they're either united, or they're not.
 
My theory is they somewhat retained their shape shifting ability. However, they can only get wings when they drink Red Bull. As for why he didn't fly up out of the chasm, since he had been asleep or hibernating for a while, the Red Bull had expired, and its effects didn't last as long, so the wings were gone by then, and he couldn't fly away.
 

Today's events

Similar threads

Back
Top