From: <<>> (Steuard Jensen) Subject: Summary of the War of the Wing Date: 17 Jul 1999 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: harper.uchicago.edu References: <7mj0a4$1qf2@drn.newsguy.com> <378DD7AA.B51@sbu.ac.uk> <7ml5c5$2alv@drn.newsguy.com> Organization: The University of Chicago Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts.books.tolkien Quoth C Porter Bassett <<>>: > For those newbies of us out here, what were the major points on both sides > of the Great Balrog Controversy? I looked in the FAQ and lessFAQ, but was > not able to find anything. Is there any place that has a synopsis or > archives? For archives, you can look at Deja.com, though you'll be rather swamped. A synopsis might be a good idea, or some sort of FAQ by a reasonably impartial party. Interestingly enough, as far as I understood it, the last War of the Wing ended with most of the participants in agreement on the following: 1) The Balrog in Moria had "wings" of some sort, which the company saw stretch from wall to wall. 2) Those "wings" were probably not made of flesh and blood, but rather of some sort of "shadow-stuff". (Thus, when the Balrog is in front of the pit of fire, the fire seems dimmed, not just plain blocked.) It says worlds about our ability to discuss things productively (or lack thereof) that we spent weeks arguing between two different ways of saying these same things without noticing that we agreed with each other. The contentious point here, as far as I can tell, pretty much depended on each person's use of the word "wing": some of us thought saying "wings" in this context implied flesh and blood wings (or at least implied something more substantial than 2) above), while others did not assign it that meaning. As there is pretty much no clear textual evidence either way, I don't know if we ever even really discussed whether or not the Balrog's "wings" were constrained to have a winglike shape, or if the Balrog could change that. (Considering their likely composition of "shadow-stuff", it seems at least possible that the Balrog could exercise some degree of control over their shape, but again, I don't know of any evidence for or against.) The other heated aspect of the debate was whether or not Balrogs could fly. Again, at the end of the last round of this debate, I believe that we agreed on the following: 3) The passage with the Balrog in Moria does not provide convincing evidence one way or the other about Balrogs ability to fly (the cavern/chasm may have been too small for the use of such big wings, and the Balrog may have just had it in for Gandalf after he dropped a roof on him anyway). 4) Even if Balrogs could fly, we do not know whether or not they used their "wings" to do so (they're Maiar, and for all we know could fly like Superman, wings or no). You may have noticed that 4) is a much weaker and more tentative sort of statement than 1) or 2). We did _not_ agree on whether or not Balrogs could fly, nor was there general agreement on whether or not the texts were clear on the matter. The only known source (apart from the presence of shadowy "wings") that indicates that Balrogs could fly is a passage from _Morgoth's Ring_ (HoMe 10), in one of Tolkien's latest renditions of the scene in which the Balrogs rescue Morgoth from Ungoliant after she has slain the Two Trees. (Remember, appropriate parts of HoMe are "more canonical" than _The Silmarillion_, so they get used most in scholarly discussions.) 5) We all agree that this passage contains strong, repeated imagery of flight, and that Tolkien intentionally created that image. (At least, I _think_ we all agree on that; amazingly coincidence of word choice, otherwise, especially for someone as focused on language as Tolkien.) However... Some of us believe that the passage does not unambiguously indicate that the Balrogs actually flew. Those who hold this opinion say that it is possible to see the imagery of flight as an indication of great speed (similar to the use of "flew" in the comment "I picked up that book, and I just flew through it"). Others believe that the passage does unambiguously indicates that the Balrogs literally flew. Those with this view say that there is no way to capture the full meaning of the passage without using words that indicate flight. (Please correct me if I have completely misstated this point and I'll substitute a suggested alternate wording the next time I post something like this.) Strangely enough, there are intelligent, thoughtful people on both sides of this issue who are convinced that theirs is the only reasonable way to read the passage. I can't really decry this situation, as I am one of those people: I firmly believe that the passage is not sufficiently clear to decide between imagery and literal flight. However, there are people for whom I have great respect who believe just as firmly that the passage clearly describes flying Balrogs. At this point, unless another text surfaces that sheds light on the matter, I don't think that any of us will convince those on the other side to change their minds. That's where we are now. I think that if we all keep our heads, we can sidestep the issue of Balrogs' ability to fly (a single text that the author had not cast into its final form is shaky evidence for any conclusion, after all) and focus on the aspects of Balrog "wings" that we do agree on. I honestly doubt that another War of the Wing could erupt at this point, now that we have recognized how broad that agreement is. Still, the subject brings terror to the hearts of many, so it's worth treating it gently. I hope these comments have at least given you a feel for the Debate that Was, an appreciation for the Questions that Are, and an understanding of the Uncertainties that will Always Be. Steuard Jensen