Do Balrogs have wings?

[Eldy Dunami]

I'm likewise hesitant to use a translation as evidence for the original author's intention, unless the author was personally involved in the process of creating it. I don't think that was the case with Tolkien and any of the German editions of his books, though I could be wrong.

When do facts actually stop and when does Tolkien allow interpretation? Does he even encourage the reader to interpret certain things or was it his intention to create a flawless world where everything can be explained and justified? So could it even be his intention that one reader imagines a Balrog to be a winged fire monster, while another interprets it as a wingless one?

I think it's hard to dispute that Tolkien did not intend for everything about his works to be neatly explained and completely unambiguous: he said as much in the Letters when discussing Bombadil and the Blue Wizards, and it can be seen throughout his the legendarium with his pervasive use of the "it is said..." style. This is most relevant to questions of perception by characters and chroniclers within the Secondary World, which has some relevance to physical descriptions, but it's not the main application of such analysis. So I'm not personally inclined to see this as relevant to the Balrog question, though others are, of course, free to disagree. :)

[Lail]

@Elenhir possibly. I definitely remember the passage being in RotK. I'll have to check my bookmarks and see if I marked it or not or maybe I'll have to read the whole thing again and rediscover it.

I do agree that translations may incorporate the translator's interpretation but I can see why that particular German translation would place you in the wing-camp, @Legolas!

Ultimately, I do not think there is a right answer, nor do I intend to "sway" someone to my side, but it is kind of fun to speculate and interesting to see why each person interprets it the way they do!

[Legolas]

@Elenhir: First of all, I'm well aware that Tolkien wrote in English and not in German. But thanks for restating the obvious. Furthermore, I must admit that I am amazed at your accusation. I do not blame anyone, nor do I accuse anyone of fault. Feel free to reread my post and you will see that I am even questioning my own statement. For the future, I ask you to refrain from such false allegations, since you criticize me for expressing doubts, but question my statement yourself. Accordingly, I wonder if you even know the point of view that you represent. Regardless, to the thematic part of your comment. Here the passage in German, followed by the translation for the word "Schwingen", which (as mentioned) is another word for wings in German.

Das Feuer des Balrogs schien zu erlischen, doch die Schatten um ihn herum wuchsnen nun umso mehr. Langsam machte es einen Schritt nach vorn und spreizte dabei seine Schwingen von einer Seite des Raums zur Anderen.

Ultimately, it is written there that the shadows around the Balrog grow and grow until it takes a step forward and spreads its wings.

Schwingen
noun, feminine
- Wings: Especially of a large bird with a large span
"the eagle [spreads] its wings"

Also, I don't paint a picture, I just try to contribute something to the topic. To that end, I never claim to know anything, only that I contradict it from my point of view by naming a reason for it, which can otherwise be discussed. Maybe use other metaphors yourself for the future to avoid further misunderstandings in this regard.

@Eldy Dunami: Agreed. Also thanks for your insightful contribution to my thought. It just amazes me. Perhaps based on translation alone, an entire country now imagines a Balrog as a winged fire monster :)

@Kirinki Cool and also agreed.

[Romeran]

@Legolas @Elenhir let’s keep it civil here please. This is a place for discussion and disagreement is obviously allowed but let us please extend respect and the benefit of the doubt to the person on the other side of the screen. Thanks.

[Elenhir]

Furthermore, I must admit that I am amazed at your accusation. I do not blame anyone, nor do I accuse anyone of fault. Feel free to reread my post and you will see that I am even questioning my own statement. For the future, I ask you to refrain from such false allegations, since you criticize me for expressing doubts, but question my statement yourself. Accordingly, I wonder if you even know the point of view that you represent.

[...]

Also, I don't paint a picture, I just try to contribute something to the topic. To that end, I never claim to know anything, only that I contradict it from my point of view by naming a reason for it, which can otherwise be discussed. Maybe use other metaphors yourself for the future to avoid further misunderstandings in this regard.

Well, that's completely untrue. Let's reread it, as you suggest, but together:

@Kirinki So I understand your point of view, but I would have to disagree with you. I agree that Tolkien's use of wings or the word fly can be confusing. However, because I just compared the Balrog passage in English and German, I have a different picture.

1. As mentioned in German it is clearly said that the Balrog spreads its great wings.

2. Furthermore, the exact translation in German is not: "Fly (...)" but contextually "flee, you fools!".

For me, your realization, therefore appears as subtly wrong and as an over-interpretation.

First sentence, you express disagreement. That's explicit.
Second sentence, you patronize the other user by agreeing to something they did not say or imply, and instead use the fact that they admit to having changed their interpretation from evidence they saw as a way to imply that they are confused.
Third sentence, you contrast their point of view and confusion ('however') with the perspective that you gain from reading a translation, implying that this translation does something to cut through the 'confusing' way Tolkien uses words.
Fourth and fifth sentence, you describe the translation. I gloss over this because it is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand, and the only reason it was brought back up was because you used it to validate dunking on someone else's ideas.
Sixth sentence, you tell the other user they are 'wrong', that they are engaging in 'over-interpretation', despite having no actual understanding of what the user has read to get them to this point, and making these judgments having only used 'perspective' from the translation, once again implying that to cut through the 'confusing' use of words and not be 'wrong' and not have an 'over-interpretation', the translation is a valid source.

So while you don't 'blame anyone' (not something I said, so less hypocrisy in complaining about false accusations, if you would), you have certainly accused the user of fault, in the sense that you found fault in their interpretation of the original source material, which is what I said. Your interpretation of my claims are subtly wrong, in a way that seems to benefit presenting yourself as a victim. Are you over-interpreting them, perhaps?

Please explain how telling another user they are wrong means you 'never claim to know anything'. You're engaged in this bizarre game where you want to adopt a philosophy that embraces interpretation, but it's tacked on at the end, only after you've made your claims. So you've got your first claim, about what are facts. And then you've got your second claim, something completely useless and pretentious that doesn't match with anything else you've said. See, when you deny someone else's position, provide (spurious) arguments as to why your position is better, and then follow that up with a big shrug about knowledge in general, the last really does appear to be nothing more than a way to head off criticism of your own criticism, which is how you've invoking it here, as a distraction to puff yourself up about and claim to be attacked. Surely, if you feel things are solid enough to question the specific interpretations others have chosen, things are solid enough to question your interpretations and your reasoning against their interpretations. No? There's no having your cake and eating it, too.

[Legolas]

@Elenhir well to be honest, I just enjoyed your explanation with my roommates for half an hour and unfortunately I can no longer take the extent of your argumentation seriously. So I'm sorry that you put in so much effort and interpreted things into my statements in vain. All I want to say in this context is that I did not intend to offend anyone, I simply wanted to present my own point of view and thus wanted to stimulate a new discussion. Otherwise, I agree with @Romeran and would ask you to remain factual and topic-related from now on.

[Elenhir]

Notice the multiple insulting implications while completely avoiding any attempt at dealing with substance. This was how you approached someone believing something different than you, and this is how you engage with criticism of your behavior. I believe @Romeran also mentioned something about being respectful, and you seem to be having trouble with that concept.

[Lail]

Oook I came to this thread with a light-hearted comment on my (renewed) interpretation...

I did not feel disrespected or patronized in any way by @Legolas's comments. I think it is entirely fair for someone to say I am wrong if that is what they think especially when I offered no real substance, quotes or otherwise, to substantiate my comments. I don’t have any problems with anything anyone said to me. I think everyone is free to interpret the text (English or German) as they see fit and there is no “right” or “wrong” answer.

Can everyone please remember context - that this is a discussion about a fictional story with fictional beings (with wings that may or may not exist) and it ultimately does not really matter nor is it worth getting into an argument over, in my opinion.

Fwiw, I find it very interesting that a German translation could possibly lead to many readers imagining balrogs with wings and I appreciate that being shared, as do I find it interesting to read about and learn about others’ interpretations and opinions, even if they do not align with my own.

@Elenhir, I thought your comments about the use of figurative language and shadows in the Balrog passage on the previous page was a good point. Thanks for adding that. It is entirely possible that it also played into my altered opinion on this heated (pun intended?) subject.

I’ll have to re-read some passages and leaf through RotK for bookmarks at some stage so I can further contribute to this discussion and see if I can come up with any substantial thoughts.

[Romeran]

@Elenhir well to be honest, I just enjoyed your explanation with my roommates for half an hour and unfortunately I can no longer take the extent of your argumentation seriously. So I'm sorry that you put in so much effort and interpreted things into my statements in vain. All I want to say in this context is that I did not intend to offend anyone, I simply wanted to present my own point of view and thus wanted to stimulate a new discussion. Otherwise, I agree with @Romeran and would ask you to remain factual and topic-related from now on.

My comments about respect refer to you as well @Legolas . Please remain civil and on topic. Thanks. The first sentence here in particular is unnecessary and @Elenhir addresses the points in your previous posts. You may not agree and you certainly do not have to. But like I said no need to make disrespectful remarks.

[Elenhir]

@Kirinki, I agree, it is entirely fair to say someone is wrong if it is thought they have no substance. The issue that arises, where it becomes less fair, is when an opinion lacking backing is denied with another opinion lacking backing. Any number of people can walk into a room and have an opinion. It's when one enters the room, bellows out their own opinion, and then starts claiming other occupants' opinions are wrong that a higher standard must be met. Yes, your opinion lacked quotes from the source to bolster it, but it did have a hint, and I did have a suspicion of the source (and an interest if I guessed wrong and you ever find it: what changes people's minds on Balrogs is somewhat of an interest of mine). If that's nothing, then certainly what was used to argue that you were wrong, and what three people (myself included) were quick to push against as not suitable for that, was also of no real substance. And while lore on the Plaza is less rigorous than it may once have been, there is a big difference between people sharing opinions that they haven't or don't care to develop fully and people repeating their own same as a way to counter others'. When we move from opinions to arguments, or when we use opinions as arguments, that's when substance really needs to appear.

Here it did not. The thing about the German passage is that, unless Google Translate is incredibly off-base, there's no functional difference between the German translation and the original English for the matter at hand. Google Translate renders the German back as this:

The Balrog's fire seemed to die out, but the shadows around him now grew even more. It slowly took a step forward, spreading its wings from one side of the room to the other.

which does not handle the 'wings' any differently than we see quoted very early in this thread by Mojo:

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;

The main distinction seems to be how that the German translation alters the sentence structure. It looks like the last part of the sentence, after the semicolon, was removed to a new sentence entirely. Something may have happened to the preceding sentence, as Tolkien uses 'it' here because he used 'Balrog' in the five-word sentence directly before this snippet (or maybe German or the translator does not care as much as Tolkien about immediate reuse of proper nouns). I don't know where the height clause went in the translation. But none of that alters the way 'wings' is used in the sentence itself. And the rest, while interesting from a translation perspective, is irrelevant to this topic.

This is nothing more than the oft-expressed difference of interpretation over whether that second use of 'wings' is figurative (as the first certainly is) or literal. Again, see Mojo's comment near the top of this thread, and add geordie's immediate disagreement. That's just the basic disagreement that makes this question a question. All arguments about Balrog wings exist to expand from and illuminate the use of that specific word. Without that word in that sentence, this question does not exist. Unless there is some unique nature to the German word itself that somehow bars it, unlike the English 'wings', from being used metaphorically, this is just that literal take we've all seen, needlessly filtered through a translation. Which I find unfortunate, because diving into a language most people here do not speak and with no apparent benefit only serves to mystify the information. For a correction, or for any attempt to provide understanding, taking steps to make it less approachable is entirely counter-productive. The very point of an explanation should be to explain.

Again, it's possible that there is something inherent to the specific choice of the German word that bars it from being used in the same manner as the English equivalent, but if so, that would be crucial to inform people about. And I have specifically asked, and been given no response. Instead, it is just hammered into us that 'Schwingen' (a 'wings' cognate?) means 'wings', as if that's sufficient. Which implies that there is no greater analysis, that the argument being made is nothing beyond the inability to consider anything other than a literal reading of the word. That doesn't require the German. That argument can be made in original English, because that, too, has the word 'wings'. Again, as the most basic pro-wings argument, it's the most common pro-wings argument made. It's not new information. It's not unique to the translation. Going through German only makes it harder to follow, harder to recognize that it's the same elementary argument seen earlier in this thread and in literally every other thread about Balrogs ever made. I'm honestly struggling to see why it would be presented in this way by anyone saying they compared the quote in the languages. Because looking to the German translation adds nothing. All it does is reduce the ability of non-speakers to engage.

My only real guess here, and even this is a late-coming shotin the dark, because there's been more cheek than explanation, is that the wrong quote is being compared, and that instead of comparing the second English use of 'wings' with the presumed second German use, the first English use, the simile, is being compared with the second German use. This would explain the confusion around what Eldy originally thought Legolas was trying to highlight. Because to Eldy, who has a firm grasp on the material, 'dragon-like' would be a real difference they would see between the second quote and what Legolas originally said. Whereas the intentioned difference of 'actually spreads its wings' would be the mistake of someone wrongly comparing the first quote in one language to the second quote in another, and missing, because translations are not exact, that they are completely different quotes. Otherwise no real difference exists, and it's a hyper-literal fixation.

[Istanira]

I don't think Balrogs have wings. If Balrogs have wings (and assuming that wings enable flight), then why would the Balrog in LOTR: Fellowship of the Ring "fall" from the Bridge of Khazad-dum down into the pits of Moria (and then have to climb all those stairs to get to the mountain peak)? If it had wings, wouldn't it be able to fly instead of fall?

[Winddancer]

I don't think Balrogs have wings. If Balrogs have wings (and assuming that wings enable flight), then why would the Balrog in LOTR: Fellowship of the Ring "fall" from the Bridge of Khazad-dum down into the pits of Moria (and then have to climb all those stairs to get to the mountain peak)? If it had wings, wouldn't it be able to fly instead of fall?

Not all wings are used for flying, like an ostrich ;) And welcome to the oldest debate on the Plaza! :P

[Rivvy Elf]

The Balrog broke the mountainside as he fell, clearly showing that 5,000 years of slumber did not do wonders to his weight. Probably became too heavy to fly.

[Aeros]

It rules that this subject is still being debated on the plaza and Elenhir really did a ton of research back in the day.

I think my opinion is still:

a. A lot of the evidence from Tolkien's early writing suggests that he mostly conceived of wingless balrogs, especially in the context of writing about them as captains under Morgoth, leading his armies in the first age. In this context it would make sense for them to be basically large foot soldier / centurion types, marching at the heads of columns of orcs

b. Durin's Bane's shadow did in fact stretch out like two vast wings, this is a simile

c. Durin's Bane also did have actual physical wings, indicated by the phrase: "Suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall". The sentence is describing the physical traits of the Balrog (drawing itself up, spreading its wings). I don't really buy the idea that this is an "extension of the simile" that came prior, since that's not really how similes work. The most parsimonious explanation is that Tolkien wrote that the balrog's wings were spread wall to wall, because he had physical wings that were spread wall to wall.

d. None of these aforementioned points are contradictory, because fiction writers are not bound to consistency. All the aforementioned facts can co-exist, because I think Tolkien was probably not really concerned with being totally consistent about this specific point. Balrogs are not actually a real species in the world, they are a literary concept that changed over time in the head of the author. In many instances he may have imagined wingless Balrogs, but in the case of Moria he specified that the particular Balrog there had wings.

[DalMaegil]

Among the Tolkien Society, if one wanted to play a wicked prank at parties, one would bring up this very question.