It's not. But one does have to consciously look past the serious Balrog discussions.

On the other hand, if you're referring to serious literary criticism, dealing with symbol and metaphor, I find that stuff boring.

: Why this obsession with fictional history? It's essentially
: pseudo-anthropology. You're trying to find truths about a
: non-existent material world through a fictional work - a novel
: no less, not even a history.

Nope. Just documenting what the author wrote.

: I always thought Balrogs had wings - from my viewings of Howe's
: paintings - until someone mentioned this debate and I re-read
: the passage at Moria. Judging from my personal assessment of
: Tolkien's style and my understanding of writing in general, I
: quickly came to the decision that the "wings" in the passage
: were entirely metaphorical,...

Characters in the story don't see the metaphors. Tolkien's characters saw the Balrog's wings.

: except in the sense that they were extensions of the Balrog's
: shadow, because the Balrog apparently has the ability to
: emanate or project darkness and fire simultaneously, a
: brilliant and creepy invention by Tolkien. This emanated
: darkness, apparently, resembled a pair of wings in this
: context. But darkness it remains.

So, you're basically still in the wingers camp. :)

: I have never, ever been persuaded by any of the arguments since
: that the Balrog of Moria had wings, and I never will be.
: Tolkien didn't say it did; in fact, he inferred that it didn't.
: And that's good enough for me.

No, he said it had wings, and he certainly never IMPLIED that it did not.

And that's good enough for me.
------------------
Xenite.Org: Science Fiction and Fantasy