Is THIS how you imagined the vampires?

[sallkid]

http://www.thepalantir.org/photopost/data/583/image21.jpg
This is Games Workshop's "Terror of Arnor" which has been officially confirmed to represent a vampire.

What i'd like to ask is this:

Is this how you imagined the vampires in tolkien?

(just to verify this is a substantially bigger model than those represnting the human-sized characters)

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

What i'd like to ask is this:

Is this how you imagined the vampires in tolkien?

No, no and again, no.

It is positively clear that this figure resembles more one certain thing: a balrog. Yes, a big, mean, nasty, black, winged Balrog...

*runs for cover*

But seriously, I always imagined the vampires in Tolkien just as giant bats, nothing more (cf. Lúthien's metamorphosis).

[Sir Kohran]

It looks too similar to a Fellbeast; it lacks individuality. Tolkien was quite vague on the vampires (probably intentionally), but I think he imagined something more unique than this.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

It looks too similar to a Fellbeast; it lacks individuality. Tolkien was quite vague on the vampires (probably intentionally), but I think he imagined something more unique than this.
Fellbeast in the movies, to be precise. It is very similar to it: you know, it evokes in me the thought of a monster from which, in the moment of its death, flies a sign reading "*1000 XP*". In the books, I quite liked the Fell beasts. And imagined them far nicer than these gray-something with big head.

Concerning the vampires, I think you are right about the "unique": they are some sort of enigma, like Beorn for example (when this thread is popular). A-ha! I know now! Gothmog the Lieutenant of Morgul was a vampire! Well, why not?

[Nogrod]

Far from it!

It has no resemblance to any believable vampire whatsoever...

It's kind of a messy get-together of vampires, bats, gargoyles, balrogs or whatever monsters you can think... in a scale that is only unbelievable and clumsy.

Just think of bat-like humans and you're on your way to true vampireship... it's a lot scarier anyway. :rolleyes:

Even if I don't exactly applaud the movie of the League of the Extraordinary Gentlemen (or whatever it was in English) the scene where the vampire-woman showed why no one needed to protect her by killing very suddenly the guy who was threatening her was something I liked a lot. It had something like a vampire-feeling in it. Neat and sneaky but at the same time over-aggressive and scary... vampirish in short.

Scary, not the imbecile fantasy-stereotype which always goes for the lowest common denominator.

People would not have feared of vampires through ages around the Western world if they weren't actually terrible - and believable...

[Hyarion]

http://tolkiengateway.net/w/images/b/b7/Ted_Nasmith_-_Transformed.jpg (http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Image:Ted_Nasmith_-_Transformed.jpg)

I pictured them more like the above image, bat-like.

[Lindale]

Funny. SInce Tolkien was vague about those vampires of his, I always pictured them as almost Bram Stoker-ish, you know, a big bat, but then again able to transform into some hideous woman (for those familiar with Philippine lit, it's the mananaggal minus the separated upper body and lower body). Very relative thoughts... I thought of the hideous-woman thingy because Luthien transformed into a bat, right? Thuringwethil or however it is spelled, haven't reread Sil recently...

[sallkid]

I believe she transformed into a vampire, not a bat.

For my part i pictured them as being another perversion of morgoth, something fell and dark, but not this thing which looks more demonic than vampiric. and definately no more than a foot higher than an average elf.

[Finduilas]

Since Tolkien didn't describe Vampires, but used a well known mithological creature, he was probably meaning it to be the usual picture, half bat half human.

[Morthoron]

Thuringwethil could take the form of a large bat, a vampire bat. This does not mean she was some type of Nosferatu. There should be no connotations of Bela Lugosi-like creatures in Middle-earth. Also, Luthien did not transform into the likeness of Thuringwethil, she merely put on the 'bat-fell' of Thurngwethil after she was killed, just as Beren wore the 'wolf-hame' of Draugluin. Tolkien refers to vampire bats at the Battle of Five Armies as well, and they are indeed bats.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Also, Luthien did not transform into the likeness of Thurngwethil, she merely put on the 'bat-fell' of Thurngwethil after she was killed,

But somehow nonetheless acquired the power of flight thereby.

[Bêthberry]

What I find fascinating is that Tolkien gave to Luthien this identity. Did he read Bram Stoker's Dracula? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracula_%28novel%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracula_%28novel%29) Did he know of the relationship between Lucy and the vampire and all the subversive sexuality of the Victorian genre?

What went through his mind as he gave these characters of the vampire and the werewolf to Luthien and Beren? And then had Luthien and Beren chistled onto the gravestones of himself and Edith?

[THE Ka]

... not transform into the likeness of Thurngwethil, she merely put on the 'bat-fell' of Thurngwethil after she was killed, just as Beren wore the 'wolf-hame' of Draugluin. Tolkien refers to vampire bats at the Battle of Five Armies as well, and they are indeed bats.

I once did an illustration of this event (sadly, it no longer is with us, my brother by *accident* threw it into the fire along with some junk mail long ago), and since Tolkien was rather vague about how actually Luthien might have looked, I highly doubt it is what the designers at GamesWorkshop thought of.
Though, I agree with you on how to consider the matter. Really, I can't see Luthien turning into a two-story vampire of sinewy porportions. When I drew it, I tried to get across the concept that it was a *cough* disguise, to give the sense of how Luthien wanted to appear to her surroundings and other creatures. There seems to be more of a sense towards secrecy and being unpretentious around other beings at Angband than, 'bwah! I be big vampiric monster...'. :p

~ Ka

[Knight of Gondor]

I do not recall Tolkien mentioning vampires??

[Morthoron]

I do not recall Tolkien mentioning vampires??

Yes, actually, in the Silmarillion in the Tale of Beren and Luthien (a single reference to a possibly Maiaric entity, Thuringwethil, and then another reference to Sauron turning into a bat), and then again in the Hobbit during the Battle of Five Armies. I can't recall any references to vampiric creatures in LotR, but it is Sunday morning and I am far too lazy to do the research.

[Lalwendë]

What I find fascinating is that Tolkien gave to Luthien this identity. Did he read Bram Stoker's Dracula? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracula_%28novel%29 Did he know of the relationship between Lucy and the vampire and all the subversive sexuality of the Victorian genre?

What went through his mind as he gave these characters of the vampire and the werewolf to Luthien and Beren? And then had Luthien and Beren chistled onto the gravestones of himself and Edith?

He almost certainly knew the Bram Stoker story and will likely have read it. He took a holiday in Whitby as a young man and already by that time (in fact as soon as the novel came out - it sold pretty well) Whitby was trading on the Dracula story. His drawing of Whitby Harbour was made directly outside the old lending library where Stoker did much of his research and writing - at that time it was still a library I believe - now it is The Magpie, mecca for lovers of Fish and Chips and the spot Tolkien stood on is the Fish Market. Since Stoker's story came out, Whitby and Dracula have gone hand-in-hand.

Plus there are Tolkien's tastes, which as they included H Rider Haggard I don't doubt would include something of a similar bent as Dracula was very much part of that genre of Boys' Own adventures. As such, I don't think the undercurrents of sex and disease were as apparent to early readers as they are today, if at all! Even if it would be exciting to think Tolkien had drawn something of this dark side into his work ;)

Now as to the form of Vampires in Tolkien's work, I think that the 'bat form' which Luthien takes is just that, i.e. a large flying bat. I don't think of demonic figures, just of a 'corrupted natural form' rather like Shelob is at heart, in the form of just a giant spider. That's good as that's also the classic notion of a vampire when he/she is flitting about.

The interesting part is what the vampire looks like when not in 'bat form'. Did Thuringwethil merely have 'folded wings' when at rest? Did she look more like a woman? Would she have been able to hide her vampire nature?

One of the scary things about vampires in popular culture of course is how they can blend in with other people - did Tolkien take that kind of template? Maybe, maybe not. What really is interesting is that he did not describe his Vampire - and really, the notion of a Vampire is one of deep-seated, dark, psychological terror. Fear of the darkness in us and in other human beings. Fear of the predator. Fear of the unknown side of human nature. I think Tolkien was playing off that in not deliberately describing his Vampire, just as he was shady and shadowy in describing, or not describing so many of his other nightmare creations. It's up to you to imagine them, if you dare...

:eek:

[sallkid]

"...in The First Age Of Sun in the Wars of Beleriand it is told how, in this winged form made large and armed with talons and steel, Vampire spirits came into the service of Melkor, the dark enemy.

In the Quest of the Silmaril Thuringwethil the "woman of secret shadow", was a mighty Vampire and was the chief messenger to travel between Angband and Tol - in - Gauroth" - Characters from Tolkien - David Day

The idea of the "winged form" suggests they are bat like. But Thuringwethil is definately described as a woman, suggesting a human or humanoid form...

[Morthoron]

"...in The First Age Of Sun in the Wars of Beleriand it is told how, in this winged form made large and armed with talons and steel, Vampire spirits came into the service of Melkor, the dark enemy.

In the Quest of the Silmaril Thuringwethil the "woman of secret shadow", was a mighty Vampire and was the chief messenger to travel between Angband and Tol - in - Gauroth" - Characters from Tolkien - David Day

Hmmm...David Day. I'd like to see the actual Tolkien quote that states "Vampire spirits came into the service of Melkor"; likewise, I'd like to read a direct Tolkien quote that states specifically "Thuringwethil....was a mighty Vampire". This is the general problem with David Day and his overactive imagination: one never knows where David Day begins and Tolkien has left off.

[Mattius]

It reminds me of Gremlins 2 when one of the Gremlins drinks the formula to make him into a vampire/gargoyle creature. I've been looking for a picture but I think it is too obscure a reference!

[sallkid]

Hmmm...David Day. I'd like to see the actual Tolkien quote that states "Vampire spirits came into the service of Melkor"; likewise, I'd like to read a direct Tolkien quote that states specifically "Thuringwethil....was a mighty Vampire". This is the general problem with David Day and his overactive imagination: one never knows where David Day begins and Tolkien has left off.

Quite so, but seeing as Luthien wore the skin of Thuringwethil to take the form of a vampire i'd say it's accurate.

[Lalwendë]

I remembered I'd started a thread on this topic some 10 months or so ago and here it is: http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=13122&highlight=thuringwethil

Now there I quoted all it said in the Sil which was:


He turned aside therefore at Sauron's isle, as they ran northward again, and he took thence the ghastly wolf-hame of Draugluin, and the bat-fell of Thuringwethil. She was the messenger of Sauron, and was wont to fly in vampire's form to Angband; and her great fingered wings were barbed at each joint's end with an iron claw. Clad in these dreadful garments Huan and Luthien ran through Taur-nu-Fuin, and all things fled before them.
Beren seeing their approach was dismayed; and he wondered, for he had heard the voice of Tinuviel, and he thought it now a phantom for his ensnaring.

and

By the counsel of Huan and the arts of Luthien he was arrayed now in the name of Draugluin, and she in the winged fell of Thuringwethil. Beren became in all things like a werewolf to look upon, save that in his eyes there shone a spirit grim indeed but clean; and horror was in his glance as he saw upon his flank a bat-like creature clinging with creased wings. Then howling under the moon he leaped down the hill, and the bat wheeled and flittered above him.

I still stand by what I said in that thread, that there is no reason why Tolkien's vampires should not take on the familiar vampire form (and especially so given that I found out a little more when in Whitby as mentioned above). Now what does interest me anew is that this thing which Luthien puts on is called a 'fell' and a 'fell' is a skin - a 'fellmonger' was someone who prepared skins for the tanner.

So did Thuringwethil put this 'fell' on when in Vampire form or was she killed and skinned? The text suggests the former as she was 'in vampires form', though if it was the latter, who skinned her? Eyuw. Hardly bears thinking about (though I will, later, and have nightmares no doubt...) - was it Huan who killed and skinned her if this was the case? Was she a Maia? And how would you skin a Maia anyway? Tolkien does call them 'dreadful garments' after all...which brings to mind that scene in Rob Roy where Liam Neeson hides inside a rotting cow or Silence of the Lambs :eek:

Had a look in the Lay of Leithian but it doesn't really give us any more info than what we have.

It's also interesting how Tolkien stuck to the resolutely Real World terminology of Vampire. I mean, could you better describe a Vampire in any word other than what they always called?

And it also brings me to the other current thread about Beorn...another 'skin changer'...was he really donning some grisly Bear skin?

[Morthoron]

Quite so, but seeing as Luthien wore the skin of Thuringwethil to take the form of a vampire i'd say it's accurate.

Not exactly, she donned the bat-fell of Thuringwethil --

fell (fĕl)
n.
1. The hide of an animal; a pelt.
2. A thin membrane directly beneath the hide.

She appeared as a vampire bat (albeit a large one), not a vampire...an important distinction, as Tolkien also referred to 'vampire bats' in The Hobbit. I cannot find any reference to Day's assertion that "Vampire spirits came into the service of Melkor". Thuringwethil could assume the shape of a vampire bat, which does not necessarily mean she was indeed a vampire. We can't expect Morgoth's minions to fly about like overgrown canaries or laden swallows, it would be unseemly, and certainly not the 'look' the Dark Lord was seeking.

And Lalwende, interestingly enough, the word 'hame' in Draugluin's wolf 'hame' does not correspond directly to 'skin' or 'pelt'; in nearly every dictionary I've looked at, a hame is as follows:

hame(hm)
n.
One of the two curved wooden or metal pieces of a harness that fits around the neck of a draft animal and to which the traces are attached.

Only when one goes further back to a corresponding word in Old Norse hamr, base *hem-, 'to cover', do we get anything even remotely close to 'skin'. However, I found an obscure website referring to Odinic Rites, here....

http://odinic-rite.org/Hama.htm

that makes reference to the following: "From the word 'Hama,' old Norse also derives the word 'Hamr,' which means 'spirit skin'- a skin that maintains the soul's energies and stops them from being dispersed when travelling from the body."

Also, "Háma may be derived from the Old English word hám meaning "village, hamlet" or it may come from the word hama meaning 'covering, garment'."

Interesting stuff.

[Bêthberry]

Morthoron, that's a fascinating phrase, spirit skin. It of course provides yet another example of the philological underpinings of Tolkien's work.

All this discussion of skin and hides reminds me that Whitby has another claim to fame: in the late 16th C one Thomas Chaloner defeated the Vatican international monopoly on alum, an element used in the curing leather, when he recognised the Vatican stone as the same as the stone on his estate in Yorkshire. His alum industry apparently sustantially undercut the costs demanded by the Vatican. Now there's a Yorkshireman for you!

Lal, your comments about Whitby's importance to Tolkien and Bram Stoker are fascinating. Do you have an online link to Tolkien's drawing of Whitby Harbour? Can it be found in J R R Tolkien: Artist and Illustrator? Perhaps someone who owns that tome could scan the picture and reproduce it here?

However, for all that fascinating history about Stoker and Whitby, Whitby is important for another subject very close to Tolkien's heart: Whitby Abby under St. Hilde was a renown centre for Anglo Saxon learning. In fact, it was a double monastery, for both men and women, and St. Hilde is held instrumental in the Cædmon story of his inspiration and famous hymn, said by some to be the first English poem. So although Tolkien may have picked up on the local lore about vampires, his main interest in the town could have been its Anglo Saxon heritage rather than research into vampires.

Still, it is intriguing to think of something in common between vampires and the elves: both are nearly immortal creatures for whom longevity breeds great ennui.

[Lalwendë]

Now as it happens I have a link to that pic here as I tried to get close to where Tolkien stood, but the modern fish market stands in the way: http://lalwendeboggart.livejournal.com/104238.html*

It is also in Artist & Illustrator, together with a sketch he did of the Abbey - a view which is identical today, despite the Abbey being shelled in WWI. Now Tolkien did take a lot of holidays on the Yorkshire coast so I wonder how fond he was of it (I know he was not all that fond of Filey, but Whitby is about 1,000% nicer!) in its own right? Did the Caedmon story stir him up? Together with Captain Cook and Dracula, Caedmon is another figure you hear a lot about in the town - there is a fab cross dedicated to scenes of his life right at the top of the 199 steps.

There is of course the Middle-earth Tavern which has a display of Tolkien posters and whatnot - but I do not know and can't find out if it was named for Tolkien or Caedmon! They do a nice chilled pint of Theakston's Old Peculier and it's almost opposite another odd ancient thing in Whitby, the Penny Hedge, planted in the harbour each Whitsun!

The place fair sucks you in with it's embarrassingly dense levels of history (and beer and fish and handmade chocolates etc ;) ) - I can't see how Tolkien could have failed to be inspired by the tales - Stoker himself took the Demeter from a real shipwreck and the black dog from the local legend of the scary Barguest. :eek:



*Wot's happened to the texty/weblink doo-dah? I liked that! :(

[davem]

We can't expect Morgoth's minions to fly about like overgrown canaries or laden swallows, it would be unseemly, and certainly not the 'look' the Dark Lord was seeking..

Of course, we do find

"Thus Sauron yielded himself, and Lúthien took the mastery of the isle and all that was there; and Huan released him. And immediately he took the form of a vampire, great as a dark cloud across the moon, and he fled, dripping blood from his throat upon the trees, and came to Taur-nu-Fuin, and dwelt there, filling it with horror."


Which seems to imply Sauron flying ('a cloud across the moon' 'dripping blood from his throat upon the trees').

Or am I misunderstanding your point?

[Raynor]

There is an interesting bit in BoLT II:
Then arose Thorndor, King of Eagles, and he loved not Melko, for Melko had caught many of his kindred and chained them against sharp rocks to squeeze from them the magic words whereby he might learn to fly (for he dreamed of contending even against Manwe in the air); and when they would not tell he cut off their wings and sought to fashion therefrom a mighty pair for his use, but it availed not.
It is interesting that Melkor is here depicted as not being able to fly (nor do we see in other versions any mentioning to the contrary); if this were true, it would imply that neither could Sauron, who, if anything, is a lesser being than he.

Also, if Sauron was able to fly, I believe it is likely he would have done this other times too, but there is no record of it.

[davem]

It is interesting that Melkor is here depicted as not being able to fly (nor do we see in other versions any mentioning to the contrary); if this were true, it would imply that neither could Sauron, who, if anything, is a lesser being than he.


I take it this would mean that Ancalagon & Smaug couldn't fly either, as they were lesser beings than Morgoth?

A vampire shape with pinions vast
Screeching leaped from the ground & passed
Its dark blood dripping on the trees (Lay of Leithian)

Or perhaps Sauron just screamed, jumped into the air & then ran off through the forest flapping his wings....

[sallkid]

If there were any "true" vampires in tolkien i strongly doubt that they'd look like this.
It brings to mind more the image of the Balrog, or one of the Nameless (Fell) Beasts.

[Raynor]

I take it this would mean that Ancalagon & Smaug couldn't fly either, as they were lesser beings than Morgoth?
Seeing that Melkor is described time and again as not being able to make new sentient beings, the race of dragons is likely a corruption of a race already able to fly. In that sense, these "proto-dragons" had this gift from the design of Eru (I am not aware that any vala was able to make even non-sentient beings).

[Morthoron]

Of course, we do find....

....Which seems to imply Sauron flying ('a cloud across the moon' 'dripping blood from his throat upon the trees').

Or am I misunderstanding your point?

I mean, by definition, when Tolkien uses the term 'vampire', he is referring to a bat or bat-like entity, not vampire in the sense of the walking dead Nosferatu variety vampire.

[Bêthberry]

I mean, by definition, when Tolkien uses the term 'vampire', he is referring to a bat or bat-like entity, not vampire in the sense of the walking dead Nosferatu variety vampire.

I would agree with you that Tolkien employs the cultural dislike of bats as another form of creature which inspires unease and dread in humans (elves and dwarves too?), similar to the creepy, crawly spiders.

Tolkien seems to have split up what you call the walking dead Nosferatu variety vampire. We have, for instance, the Dead who are cursed by Isildur and who walk the Paths of the Dead until Aragorn releases them from their oath (and Isildur's curse). Granted they are not the blood-sucking variety, but they are a form of dead who walk the earth in unhappy thralldom.

Then we have the similarity I noted above of the ennui of longevity. The aesthete is part of the vampire tradition (well, some of the tradition; it is so various) and elves certainly have aesthetic sensibilities, although perhaps without the sense of uncontrolled appetite. If we take Tolkien's comment that LotR is about death, I find it intriguing that he would consider the effects of longevity and create a race such as the elves rather than Stoker's version. Was Tolkien writing against type?

[Morthoron]

I would agree with you that Tolkien employs the cultural dislike of bats as another form of creature which inspires unease and dread in humans (elves and dwarves too?), similar to the creepy, crawly spiders.

Tolkien seems to have split up what you call the walking dead Nosferatu variety vampire. We have, for instance, the Dead who are cursed by Isildur and who walk the Paths of the Dead until Aragorn releases them from their oath (and Isildur's curse). Granted they are not the blood-sucking variety, but they are a form of dead who walk the earth in unhappy thralldom.

Then we have the similarity I noted above of the ennui of longevity. The aesthete is part of the vampire tradition (well, some of the tradition; it is so various) and elves certainly have aesthetic sensibilities, although perhaps without the sense of uncontrolled appetite. If we take Tolkien's comment that LotR is about death, I find it intriguing that he would consider the effects of longevity and create a race such as the elves rather than Stoker's version. Was Tolkien writing against type?

Very interesting analogies. Considering the vampire was never truly part of the English tradition, and the actual word 'vampire' was imported from Europe in the 18th century, and vampire stories did not come into vogue until the 19th century (very few allusions to vampirism are part of British folklore prior to the 18th century, William of Newbury's 12th century description being an exception), perhaps Tolkien's inclusion of such creatures was indeed a subconscious nod to Bram Stoker's immensely popular novel (a connection which Lalwende has offered with site specific references).

There is nothing particularly Anglo-Saxon or English (or Norse, for that matter) to merit such an inclusion; whereas wights and other grave ghouls and disembodied spirits are part of the English folklore tradition. It could be said that even werewolves were more an aspect of English folklore prior to the 17th century (wolves having been eradicated by the late 1600's), but even then, aside from Gervase of Tilbury, there is scant mention; however the use of the OE 'warg' meaning 'outlaw' (from Old Norse vargr = wolf and early Germanic wargaz = criminal, killer), one can see where Tolkien got that inspiration (I was always intrigued by the monstrous Fenris/Fenrir the Wolf in Norse mythology).

Besides, as I mentioned, what other flying creature but the bat can be considered loathsome enough to inspire fear in Morgoth's enemies? Bats are just plain creepy, sort of rats with wings.

As far as Elves, those that populated Norse myths were certainly of a divine or semi-divine nature. I had always assumed Tolkien took the aspect of Elvish immortality from Norse legend.

[davem]

I mean, by definition, when Tolkien uses the term 'vampire', he is referring to a bat or bat-like entity, not vampire in the sense of the walking dead Nosferatu variety vampire.

Sorry. When you said

We can't expect Morgoth's minions to fly about like overgrown canaries or laden swallows, it would be unseemly, and certainly not the 'look' the Dark Lord was seeking.

I thought you meant We can't expect Morgoth's minions to fly about. Obviously We can't expect Morgoth's minions to fly about is your way of saying "We can't expect Morgoth's minions to include "the walking dead Nosferatu variety vampire",

As I've shown, some of Morgoth's minions (like Sauron) did fly about (Sauron having the ability to assume human, wolf & bat form - Dracula or what?). I don't think its stated whether Thuringwethil was 'undead' or not, so one can only speculate.





I can only put this down to the old 'two nations divided by a single language' thing.

[Lalwendë]

Sorry my mind is just racing away now with notions and wild imaginings about vampires and Sauron and so on...

I think firstly that in Tolkien's case the image of the vampire to his generation was not necessarily similar to ours. We see them as seductive creatures, even attractive, whereas in his day Dracula was part of the Boys' own adventure genre and the figure of the Vampire would just have been a thrilling enemy or baddie to be defeated. Yet a very impressive one nevertheless. And Morthoron is right that Vampires are very alien to Western European culture - that very 'foreign-ness' I think makes them that bit more exotic and frightening to many readers.

Now there's nothing to say that Tolkien had to stick to Western European images in creating his work, he was free to do as he pleased of course - and he did. And he was a master of Gothic (as were many Catholics) and why not bring in the most Uber-Goth of all Gothic icons, the Vampire? ;)

What does interest me in the Vampire/Elf comparison is that not all Elves are these good, perfect people! There is the information that Tolkien gave us about Elves who lingered in Middle-earth eventually seeing their hroa burn away and becoming sinister, shadowy inhabitants of trees and rocks. There are greedy, bloodthirsty Elves like Feanor and his kin became. There are seductive, Byronic Dark Elves like Eol.

Now another thing which interests me is that Sauron seems to have been able to take 'Vampire form'. Does this mean that it was simply that - a kind of costume available to Maiar or does it mean it already existed as a form? Or does it mean that if one took the form of a Bat then it would mean one would not be a bat but would be a kind of corrupted bat - i.e. a Vampire? And by extension, was a werewolf a specifically corrupted form of Wolf? I'm leaning to that as Tolkien in the one phrase uses both 'bat-like' and 'bat':

By the counsel of Huan and the arts of Luthien he was arrayed now in the name of Draugluin, and she in the winged fell of Thuringwethil. Beren became in all things like a werewolf to look upon, save that in his eyes there shone a spirit grim indeed but clean; and horror was in his glance as he saw upon his flank a bat-like creature clinging with creased wings. Then howling under the moon he leaped down the hill, and the bat wheeled and flittered above him.

So it is metaphorically like a bat and also literally a bat.

Bit like the Balrog's wings eh?

I think left there deliberately like that to suggest a mercurial nature that cannot quite be defined - in the case of Vampire, Werewolf and Balrog alike.

And I still incline towards the Vampire being able to take bat and humanoid form as why else would Thuringwethil's name mean 'woman of shadow'?

[Morthoron]

Sorry. When you said

We can't expect Morgoth's minions to fly about like overgrown canaries or laden swallows, it would be unseemly, and certainly not the 'look' the Dark Lord was seeking.

I thought you meant We can't expect Morgoth's minions to fly about. Obviously We can't expect Morgoth's minions to fly about is your way of saying "We can't expect Morgoth's minions to include "the walking dead Nosferatu variety vampire"....

No, what I meant was Morgoth's minions couldn't bloody well go flying about looking like great pink canaries; they would necessarily have to go flying about in the form of a bat or some other loathsome apparition, in keeping with Tolkien's code of evil equaling dark/black/sinister.

And I still incline towards the Vampire being able to take bat and humanoid form as why else would Thuringwethil's name mean 'woman of shadow'?

*shrugs* Again the enigmatic Professor Tolkien strikes. Sauron could take the form of a bat or a wolf, but I dont' think that suggests he was either a vampire or a wolf. I believe this is one of those thousands of instances in Middle-earth labeled 'open to conjecture'.

P.S. On further examination, one finds the trolls who fought Aragorn's forces at the Morannon bit the necks of their adversaries. This is perhaps more of a predatory means of killing as seen in other real world species (felines, for instance).

[davem]

[QUOTE=Morthoron;526892]No, what I meant was Morgoth's minions couldn't bloody well go flying about looking like great pink canaries; they would necessarily have to go flying about in the form of a bat or some other loathsome apparition, in keeping with Tolkien's code of evil equaling dark/black/sinister.
QUOTE]

As in the goldish-black Smaug or the Whiteish-Black Saruman? Or the paleish-black Ringwraiths & such.

Or were you just generalising – the exception proves the rule & all that?

[the phantom]

Actually, that is pretty much how I pictured Thuringwethil's in-flight form.

[Bêthberry]

Very interesting analogies. Considering the vampire was never truly part of the English tradition, and the actual word 'vampire' was imported from Europe in the 18th century, and vampire stories did not come into vogue until the 19th century (very few allusions to vampirism are part of British folklore prior to the 18th century, William of Newbury's 12th century description being an exception), perhaps Tolkien's inclusion of such creatures was indeed a subconscious nod to Bram Stoker's immensely popular novel (a connection which Lalwende has offered with site specific references).

There is nothing particularly Anglo-Saxon or English (or Norse, for that matter) to merit such an inclusion; whereas wights and other grave ghouls and disembodied spirits are part of the English folklore tradition. It could be said that even werewolves were more an aspect of English folklore prior to the 17th century (wolves having been eradicated by the late 1600's), but even then, aside from Gervase of Tilbury, there is scant mention; however the use of the OE 'warg' meaning 'outlaw' (from Old Norse vargr = wolf and early Germanic wargaz = criminal, killer), one can see where Tolkien got that inspiration (I was always intrigued by the monstrous Fenris/Fenrir the Wolf in Norse mythology).

Well, spiders are more part of African folklore--the trickster God Anansi--than UK lore (if I recall correctly), but that didn't stop Tolkien from creating the hideous Shelob or Ungoliant. And as a Medievalist, he would most likely know of the account by William of Newbury. While Tolkien was clearly working within the context of northern sagas and folklore, that does not necessarily exclude other sources of inspiration. If one is creating an entire mythology, one is bound to be inclusive rather than exclusive, no? (btw, there is a fascinating article in Charles Dickens’ magazine All the Year Round, which links vampires and werewolves and of course the pre-Raphaelites did tend to conflate medieval themes with vampyric things.)


As far as Elves, those that populated Norse myths were certainly of a divine or semi-divine nature. I had always assumed Tolkien took the aspect of Elvish immortality from Norse legend.

It isn't the aspect of immortality per se which is the significant shared characteristic, but the response to such immortality--long memories, the ennui and weariness of it all. It's been ages since I read the Norse sagas or the Greek or Roman myths, but I think Tolkien explored the effect of such long memories in a way that had not been done before. Of course, I could be over emphasizing the ennui of the elves. Perhaps nostalgia is the more predominant trait. Yet I think the boredom of the aesthete, to which I include the cult of the vampires, is definitely there in Tolkien. He may not have liked the Wildes of the literature of his time, but that would not stop an author from exploring some similar conditions.

[davem]

Well, spiders are more part of African folklore--the trickster God Anansi--than UK lore (if I recall correctly), but that didn't stop Tolkien from creating the hideous Shelob or Ungoliant.

Tolkien played down the significance of the Tarantula bite he suffered as a child, but it may have played some part in the prominence of spiders in his Legendarium. However Michael (I think it was) had a fear of spiders. They appear in Roverandom as well as TH, LotR & The Sil. In TH & Roverandom, both written for his children - or at least his children were the primary audience - one should perhaps focus on the family relevance of spiders.

Again, the spider has strong pagan connections, being a creature linked with Ariadne & possibly with the Welsh Arianrhod ( her name 'Silver-wheel' has been linked with a spider's web).

Of course, spiders are quite creepy creatures....

It isn't the aspect of immortality per se which is the significant shared characteristic, but the response to such immortality--long memories, the ennui and weariness of it all. It's been ages since I read the Norse sagas or the Greek or Roman myths, but I think Tolkien explored the effect of such long memories in a way that had not been done before. Of course, I could be over emphasizing the ennui of the elves. Perhaps nostalgia is the more predominant trait. Yet I think the boredom of the aesthete, to which I include the cult of the vampires, is definitely there in Tolkien. He may not have liked the Wildes of the literature of his time, but that would not stop an author from exploring some similar conditions.

In A Question of Time Flieger cites an unpublished note by Tolkien on Elvish time:

"In Elvish sentiment the 'future' was not one of hope or desire, but a decay & retrogression from former bliss & power. Though inevitably it lay 'ahead', as of one on a journey, "looking forward" did not implyanticipation of delight. "I look forward to seeing you again" did not mean or imply "I wish to see you again, & since that is arranged/& or very likely, I am pleased". It meant simply "I expect to see you againwith the certainty of foresight(in some circumstances) or regard that as very probable - it might be with fear or dislike, 'foreboding'" Their position , as of latter day sentiment was of exiles driven forward (against their will) who were in mind or actual position ever looking backwards".

Flieger interprets -

"Tolkien's Elves, who, facing toward their past, are 'backed' into the future by those who follow. Men are 'proceeding' into the future, while Elves are 'receeding' into it."

I'm not sure that the Elvish attitude, their sense of alienation & isolation from the present, would promote a feeling of ennui - more one of 'embattlement'. My own feeling is that their desire to 'embalm' the world around them (hence leading to produce the Rings) is a direct result of this feeling.

[Lalwendë]

Tolkien played down the significance of the Tarantula bite he suffered as a child, but it may have played some part in the prominence of spiders in his Legendarium. However Michael (I think it was) had a fear of spiders. They appear in Roverandom as well as TH, LotR & The Sil. In TH & Roverandom, both written for his children - or at least his children were the primary audience - one should perhaps focus on the family relevance of spiders.

Again, the spider has strong pagan connections, being a creature linked with Ariadne & possibly with the Welsh Arianrhod ( her name 'Silver-wheel' has been linked with a spider's web).

Of course, spiders are quite creepy creatures....


And there is the uncanny similarity between the Tolkienian word for Spiders and the Lancastrian one - Attercop and Attercrop. I believe the latter is from Norse or Old English too. Uncanny when familiar words that few others know crop up in a book like that ;)

I think he simply picked up on lots of thrilling and scary touchstones for his work - after all it takes a rare person (like me) who is keen on spiders rather than afraid of them. And the very idea of a Vampire is just quite horrible when you think about it.

Interesting though how many readers, particularly younger ones, pick up on both the Elves' and on Vampires' immortality and consider it exciting and cool and enviable. I know, I was the same. And then you get older, when you logically think you would relish immortality even more, and instead you begin to find the idea slightly 'wrong', even frightening. Now if you read Vampire fiction, particularly Anne Rice, then you also find immortals feeling that way, that they do not in fact like the idea of living forever, and it seems a fair few Elves too get tired with it. In fact a few little rebellions here and there might have seemed valuable boredom relievers to some Elves...

[Beanamir of Gondor]

Tolkien does seem to differentiate very much between the "Nosferatu-vampire", as Morthoron put it, and the "vampire-bat". I looked over the text everyone was talking about again, and my edition of the Silm (second edition, Christopher Tolkien, Del Ray paperback) there's a specific distinction between Luthien taking on the "vampire" form and Sauron taking it on:
The Silmarillion, Ballantine Edition p. 207
Then Sauron yielded himself, and Luthien took the mastery of the isle and all that was there; and Huan released him. And immediately he took the form of a vampire, great as a dark cloud across the moon, and he fled, dripping blood from his throat upon the trees, and came to Taur-nu-Fuin, and dwelt there, filling it with horror.
To me, the dripping blood and great as a dark cloud across the moon definitely, definitely indicate some kind of Stoker-ian vampire. Wasn't there some piece in Mina Harker's diary about a shadow across the moon? (I'll be back to edit this, I don't have the book with me right now.) Besides, the dripping blood from his throat evokes Dracula, even if it was just Huan's attack that left his throat torn.
Then there's the section with Luthien, which I take very differently:
The Silmarillion, Ballantine Edition p. 211
He turned aside therefore at Sauron's isle, as they ran northward again, and he took thence the ghastly wolf-hame of Draugluin, and the bat-fell of Thuringwethil. She was the messenger of Sauron, and was wont to fly in vampire's form to Angband; and her great fingered wings were barbed at each joint's end with an iron claw.
Now, not to pick nits or count straws or anything, but that paragraph doesn't necessarily say that Thuringwethil's bat-fell was necessarily in vampire-form when Luthien put it on. All it says is that Thuringwethil was a bat, and that sometimes she flew to Angband dressed as a vampire.
Now, Morthoron made the distinction between the "vampire bat-fell" and the "Nosferatu vampire form". I think we're working with far too little text and way too many English majors, but it could be that the Nosferatu form, the one Sauron took with the dripping blood and the great black cloud, also had great fingered wings.

In that David Day edition that sallkid was talking about, there was also an illustration of vampires. I wish I could find the illustration--my favorite used bookstore has a copy, next time I'll just walk in and buy it, and scan the picture in. But anyway, the vampire in that particular edition looked a lot like the original Nosferatu. Of course, that was all heretical pictures created by an unauthorized artist...

[Morthoron]

No, what I meant was Morgoth's minions couldn't bloody well go flying about looking like great pink canaries; they would necessarily have to go flying about in the form of a bat or some other loathsome apparition, in keeping with Tolkien's code of evil equaling dark/black/sinister.

As in the goldish-black Smaug or the Whiteish-Black Saruman? Or the paleish-black Ringwraiths & such.

Or were you just generalising – the exception proves the rule & all that?

Aside from your snide contrariness, yes, generally Tolkien swathes evil in dark hues, and I believe I used three definors in the sentence: dark, black and sinister (sinister is not a color last time I checked; although I am sure it connotes 'lunch' in your neck of the woods). Saruman was no longer 'The White' at the time we meet him in LotR (he was the many-colored), and I do believe the Nazgul are referred to on more than one occasion as 'black riders'. Tolkien's work was a study in contrasts, from the Black Gate of the Morannon to the White Towers of Ecthelion, from Black Numenoreans to the White Tree of Gondor, from the Black Riders to the White Council, etc.

[davem]

Aside from your snide contrariness, yes, generally Tolkien swathes evil in dark hues, and I believe I used three definors in the sentence: dark, black and sinister (sinister is not a color last time I checked; although I am sure it connotes 'lunch' in your neck of the woods). Saruman was no longer 'The White' at the time we meet him in LotR (he was the many-colored), and I do believe the Nazgul are referred to on more than one occasion as 'black riders'. Tolkien's work was a study in contrasts, from the Black Gate of the Morannon to the White Towers of Ecthelion, from Black Numenoreans to the White Tree of Gondor, from the Black Riders to the White Council, etc.

Something I posted on another thread a while back:

I think the best starting point is Flieger's Splintered Light. the Light begins as a single pure source of life & holiness - the Secret Fire. It appears first in Arda in the Lamps which Melkor breaks. Its next appearance is in the Trees, but there it is not the pure, single, unwavering light of the Lamps, it is now twofold, Gold & Silver & more imporatantly it fluctuates. When the Trees are killed, it survives in threefold form, in the Silmarils, & in the Sun & Moon. So, as Flieger points out, we have an increasing fragmentation, a splintering, of the Light.

Language comes into the equation also - the High Elves, the Calaquendi (lit Cal = Light & Quendi = speakers) speak the langauge of Light, while the Moriquendi speak the language of the Darkness. On the Noldor's return to Middle earth Thingol forbids the use of Quenya & demands that the exiles speak Sindarin. So, the splintering & subsequent lessening of the Light brings about a kind of linguistic devolution. There's a movement from the pure Light towards the darkness due to this fragmentation, & an equal linguistic movement from Quenya to the Black Speech, a language in which all 'light' & beauty is absent.

I think the Breaking of the White Light is to be understood in theological rather than scientific terms.

My own feeling is that the argument between Gandalf & Saruman is the argument between theology & science. Saruman is a 'scientist' & thinks of light as a physical phenomenon, a thing which can be broken up into its constituent elements, while Gandalf is a 'theologian' & thinks of Light not as photons but as the physical manifestation of the Secret Fire, the Holy Spirit of Eru. In other words Gandalf has retained his 'spiritual vision' - he remembers the Music - while Saruman has become lost in a materialistic worldview. In short, there is light & there is Light. Saruman's breaking of the white light is wrong in Gandalf's eyes because Saruman is following the path of Melkor, & exacerbating the shattering of Arda which Melkor began.

Everything is becoming 'dark'. Its interesting that Gandalf claims to be a servant of the Secret Fire, while Saruman is clearly attempting to become its master. He is attempting to manipulate it to serve his own ends. Gandalf is attempting to get Saruman to understand his 'sin', because Saruman (he hopes, I suppose) doesn't actually understand what he is really doing. The Light is Holy in Middle earth, because it is the Light of God. IF we could run the story of Middle earth backwards we'd see a movement towards greater & greater Light, culminating ultimately in Eru Himself. What we actually see is a movement away from the Light, through increasing fragmentation, towards darkness - not simply an absence of Light, but its opposite, its negation, symbolised in creatures like the Nazgul - & set forth in the confrontation between them, nine fragments of 'nothingness' & the Light symbolised by Glorfindel who drives them back with a combination of the Light of Aman in his face & the Light's physical manifestation - fire. There is no symbolic difference between mundane fire & the Secret Fire in this sense - & that's why the Nazgul fear fire - in Middle earth the most mundane things can be 'holy' or unholy - & this is what Saruman has either forgotten or is denying.

So I'm familiar with the concept of light breaking down & fragmenting into darkness (Tolkien himself stated that evil is fissiparous & cannot create new things, only 'reproduce' by breaking itself down into smaller 'bits' - which are in conflict with themselves (Saruman's 'breaking of the 'white' light into colours symbolises his own inner fragmentation. Indeed, the perceptive reader can see his fall coming because of that, & Gandalf's warning that "He who breaks a thing to find out what it is made of." is a clear warning to his fellow Istari that he is in danger of complete dissipation.

However, Tolkien does not simply use black & darkness to symbolise evil, & that is an essential point in his work - often the servants of evil 'Look fair, but feel foul.' & even a Hobbit like Frodo realise that. If the Elves had, & had not fallen for the fair visage presented by Annatar, a lot of hassle could have been avoided. Unfortunately, they thought that evil uniformly appeared in a "dark, black and sinister" form.

[Raynor]

If the Elves had, & had not fallen for the fair visage presented by Annatar, a lot of hassle could have been avoided. Unfortunately, they thought that evil uniformly appeared in a "dark, black and sinister" form.
Well, it was only a tiny fraction of the elves that fell for his disguise; plus, he didn't rely on simply good looks, he used all he had in his arsenal to achieve his ends. Concerning the hassle, the creation of the ring made it possible to incapacitate him for a good while in the Third Age and to finally reduce Sauron to impotence.

[davem]

Well, it was only a tiny fraction of the elves that fell for his disguise; plus, he didn't rely on simply good looks, he used all he had in his arsenal to achieve his ends. Concerning the hassle, the creation of the ring made it possible to incapacitate him for a good while in the Third Age and to finally reduce Sauron to impotence.

Yes.... but

It was his beauty that seduced them. One assumes that if he'd appeared in monstrous form they would have suspected him. Because he appeared to them in a form of great beauty they let him in. He then seduced them with his wisdom.

It would seem to me that Morgoth & Sauron were smart enough to realise that their foes judged too much on looks (& the Elvish obsession with physical beauty generally). Perhaps this is a direct result of their own eternal physical beauty & the fact that they are impervious to illness which might ravage their looks. To Elves 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty'. Sauron seems to have ued this Elvish weakness to get close enough to do damage.

As to the creation of the Ring making it possible to incapacitate & reduce Sauron to impotence, yes, but that of course was unforseen & unintended by him & so not part of his motivation & plays no part in his choice of means or, most importantly, in the intentions/motivations of the Elves.

[Lalwendë]

Just to lay something to rest if I may here. davem is correct that Tolkien does not broadly equate white with good, black with evil. Nor does he equate good looking with good, ugly with evil. One of the commonest criticisms levelled at Tolkien is that he is simplistic in his uses of black/white and good/evil and is a racist for doing so. Now though, that argument has been trashed by Tolkien readers the world over who see that his work is NOT so simplistic! Delve into the books however and it turns out that Tolkien did indeed take great care that white did not equal good and black did not equal evil. What more do you need than the obvious examples that Saruman was the White wizard and Aragorn's banner was black? On the fair/ugly line, what more proof do you need than Strider's off-putting appearance and Sauron's fair visage in Eregion?

[Raynor]

It was his beauty that seduced them.
I would call this a second-rate factor at best, an excuse,rather than a motive. What we see in the Eregion elves is a motive present all throughout the work: highly endowed persons, who are seduced by the product of their craft, which leads them astray. Sauron offered them more than good looks, of which their kindred had no lack ;). He offered them knowledge and the promise of fulfillment of their dreams, dreams which already conquered the minds and hearts of those elves. Also, commenting on the issue of Tom and the matter of control, Tolkien said (emphasis added):
The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on
As to the creation of the Ring making it possible to incapacitate & reduce Sauron to impotence, yes, but that of course was unforseen & unintended by him & so not part of his motivation & plays no part in his choice of means or, most importantly, in the intentions/motivations of the Elves.
Well, the issue was that their choice caused a hassle, which I believe I showed is partially true. As far as their motivations, they actually intended to ward off evil and corruption.

[Morthoron]

Just to lay something to rest if I may here. davem is correct that Tolkien does not broadly equate white with good, black with evil.

Oh, but I do believe he does. He does so on a very consistent basis as a method of contrast.

Nor does he equate good looking with good, ugly with evil.

That is a fair statement. But my impetus is not so much on good and ugly but on the contrast of dark and light.

One of the commonest criticisms levelled at Tolkien is that he is simplistic in his uses of black/white and good/evil and is a racist for doing so.

I've never considered Tolkien a racist, in fact his letters bear the point that he was in fact quite the opposite; however, that does not obviate the fact that, even as Davem implied, there is light and there is darkness; there is the light of the two trees and there is the void in which Morgoth walked alone nursing his dark thoughts. There is Morgoth's destruction of the light with the aid of Ungoliant's impenetrable shadow.

Now though, that argument has been trashed by Tolkien readers the world over who see that his work is NOT so simplistic! Delve into the books however and it turns out that Tolkien did indeed take great care that white did not equal good and black did not equal evil. What more do you need than the obvious examples that Saruman was the White wizard and Aragorn's banner was black? On the fair/ugly line, what more proof do you need than Strider's off-putting appearance and Sauron's fair visage in Eregion?

I don't believe anything Tolkien did was simplistic, nor was it so in his use of dark/black and light/white; that would be like saying Rembrandt's use of chiaroscuro was simplistic. As far as Aragorn's banner being black, I would suggest a white tree would not show up very well on a white background. In regards to Saruman, we are already aware that he has fallen from 'white' and the mantle would be taken up by Gandalf (a point Gandalf makes clear in Fangorn -- 'I am Gandalf the White'). As a matter of fact, Gandalf's challenge to the Balrog on the Bridge of Khazad-dum contains the contrast of dark and light most vividly:

I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udun. Go back to the shadow!

As far as 'appearing fair' that is a tactic, and does not preclude the dark underpinnings apparent in the protrayal of evil. In any case, both Sauron and Morgoth eventually lost the ability to appear as anything but the dark reflection of their sinister inner machinations.

Morgoth, Moria, Morannon, Mirkwood, Mordor, Black Numenoreans, Morgul, Anglachel/Gurthang (the sword is black), Daedeloth, Delduwath, Ered Wethrin, Ephel Duath, Ulfang the Black, Ancalagon the Black -- by definition there is never an implication of 'white' or 'light' in anything evil or corrupted in Middle-earth.

[sallkid]

Morgoth, Moria, Morannon, Mirkwood, Mordor, Black Numenoreans, Morgul, Anglachel/Gurthang (the sword is black), Daedeloth, Delduwath, Ered Wethrin, Ephel Duath, Ulfang the Black, Ancalagon the Black -- by definition there is never an implication of 'white' or 'light' in anything evil or corrupted in Middle-earth.

What about Smaug the Golden? Or the "Black Arrow" of Bard the Bowman?
Saruman the white has already been mentioned as has Sauron the Fair.

I believe aragorn's black banner was described as having no device, or if there were it was dark enough that no image could be seen. (i'll have to check up on that)

[Morthoron]

What about Smaug the Golden? Or the "Black Arrow" of Bard the Bowman?
Saruman the white has already been mentioned as has Sauron the Fair.

There is a reminiscence from Tolkien's childhood regarding 'green great dragon' as opposed to the more proper 'great green dragon'. I suppose dragons, being a lifelong favorite of Tolkien, are exempt and come in a plethora of colors. And again, Saruman was no longer 'white' or 'fair' as portrayed in LotR; he lost that designation to Gandalf. Bard's arrow? Yes, it was black, so was Turin's sword. That's not really part of the point I was trying to convey. *shrugs*

I believe aragorn's black banner was described as having no device, or if there were it was dark enough that no image could be seen. (i'll have to check up on that)

It would not take much sewing on Arwen's part to make a deviceless black banner. Yes, please do check.

[Bêthberry]

I'm not sure that the Elvish attitude, their sense of alienation & isolation from the present, would promote a feeling of ennui - more one of 'embattlement'. My own feeling is that their desire to 'embalm' the world around them (hence leading to produce the Rings) is a direct result of this feeling.


It was his beauty that seduced them. One assumes that if he'd appeared in monstrous form they would have suspected him. Because he appeared to them in a form of great beauty they let him in. He then seduced them with his wisdom.

It would seem to me that Morgoth & Sauron were smart enough to realise that their foes judged too much on looks (& the Elvish obsession with physical beauty generally). Perhaps this is a direct result of their own eternal physical beauty & the fact that they are impervious to illness which might ravage their looks. To Elves 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty'. Sauron seems to have ued this Elvish weakness to get close enough to do damage.


Getting away from vampires per se here, but: Dorien Gray.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Concerning Aragorn's black banner: (as a Telcontar and a needlewoman, this is my area of expertise! :D )

The banner was furled at first, so that only the black could be seen when it was brought to Aragorn. But when it was unfurled upon the coming of the Corsair ships, this is what it looked like: ...behold! upon the foremost ship a great standard broke, and the wind displayed it as she turned towards the Harlond. There flowered a White Tree, and that was for Gondor; but Seven Stars were about it, and a high crown above it, the signs of Elendil that no lord had borne for years beyond count. And the stars flamed in the sunlight, for they were wrought of gems by Arwen daughter of Elrond; and the crown was bright in the morning, for it was wrought of mithril and gold.
I quite agree that the reason for the black standard was primarily artistic - the gems and gold and mithril showed up best against that dark background. I have no idea if there was also an historical reason for the black standard. But it seems to me to be a wonderful symbol for Aragorn - seemingly dark (foul) but then bright when fully seen (fair). Gandalf's greatness too was at first cloaked in grey, before it was revealed in its brightness.

[Lalwendë]

Morthoron, there's enough examples on here now to show that Tolkien equating light with good, dark with evil was anything but consistently shown! ;) And to add that the Gondorians built Orthanc out of black stone and the walls of Minas Tirith too. I believe that white flowers grow in Morgul Vale, and Saruman's symbol is the White Hand. Far from setting up a simplistic white/black symbolism Tolkien plays with the perceived cultural notions of white/back = good/evil - not all shades of black are bad, not all shades of white are good. It's been brought up many a time to counter the accusation that Tolkien is simplistic and uses traditionally racist symbolism.

Course if you want to just win an argument or make a point you may disregard all these examples which show Tolkien was not being so straightforwards. ;) Yes there are contrasts, but they are by no means fixed - Tolkien also turns traditional contrasts upside down.

Rather than comparing white and black or light and darkness, and equating these with good and bad, what Tolkien does is set up the contrast of Light and Unlight, neither of which require either brightness or darkness, black or white. A very different thing altogether. In his world darkness can be very beautiful - Varda's stars against the night sky for example, or Arwen's hair, and brightness can be horrific - the bright flames at the heart of Mount Doom or the awesome Balrog.

[Raynor]

Rather than comparing white and black or light and darkness, and equating these with good and bad, what Tolkien does is set up the contrast of Light and Unlight, neither of which require either brightness or darkness, black or white.
The fact that there are some nuances and exceptions doesn't refute the idea, especially considering letter #144, which I previously quoted. The fact that we have a Boromir or a Denethor, or whatever other "gray" character, doesn't mean that there is no morality, or good characters. And as far as your statement that light and unlight don't require brightness or darkness, black or white, I really don't see what base there is for this in Tolkien's work. Plus, the term unlight doesn't even appear in LotR or Hobbit, so it hardly constitutes a motive, being restricted to the Silmarillion.

[Sir Kohran]

Morthoron, there's enough examples on here now to show that Tolkien equating light with good, dark with evil was anything but consistently shown!

Maybe. But there are many more examples that show that Tolkien generally equated white/light with good, black/shadows with bad. It's an idea that he constantly used, and not just in LOTR - for instance, when good Fingon dies, his white helmet is broken in a white flame by evil Gothmog's black axe. Whilst there may be exceptions to the rule, the rule was there and was generally prevalent - white things are mostly good, black things are mostly bad. Heck, just looking at the cover of LOTR in front of me, the Ringwraiths have jet black cloaks. It's a common motif throughout the story.

the bright flames at the heart of Mount Doom

I must disagree.

At first he could see nothing. In his great need he drew out once more the phial of Galadriel, but it was pale and cold in his trembling hand and threw no light into the stifling dark. He was come to the heart of the realm of Sauron and the forges of his ancient might, greatest in Middle-earth; all other powers were here subdued.

Whilst the flames might be bright, the cavern they inhabit is dark and black.

[Lalwendë]

The fact that there are some nuances and exceptions doesn't refute the idea, especially considering letter #144, which I previously quoted. The fact that we have a Boromir or a Denethor, or whatever other "gray" character, doesn't mean that there is no morality, or good characters. And as far as your statement that light and unlight don't require brightness or darkness, black or white, I really don't see what base there is for this in Tolkien's work. Plus, the term unlight doesn't even appear in LotR or Hobbit, so it hardly constitutes a motive, being restricted to the Silmarillion.

Yes it does refute the idea that black=evil and white=good I'm afraid. It cannot be a rule if there are exceptions to it, and significant exceptions at that. It clearly was not a fixed rule to the writer as he broke it many a time - quite likely to tell the reader something along the lines of 'you must be on your toes here, this is no simplistic nursery tale' and to shock the reader who mistakenly thinks along those lines ;)

What's more I'm pleased that Tolkien did this as it saves him from accusations of racism.

Light and Unlight refers to what the real heart of good and evil is in Tolkien's creation. The Light is holy, the Unlight is the absence or negation of that. Neither are tied to anything so 'surface' as mere colours.

And who says that because Tolkien is not simplistic we don't have good characters? Not me. Nor is that what is being discussed.


I must disagree.

At first he could see nothing. In his great need he drew out once more the phial of Galadriel, but it was pale and cold in his trembling hand and threw no light into the stifling dark. He was come to the heart of the realm of Sauron and the forges of his ancient might, greatest in Middle-earth; all other powers were here subdued.

Whilst the flames might be bright, the cavern they inhabit is dark and black.

Don't you think that this is a great example of how something supposedly bright (and therefore good) like flames might not actually be bright in the deeper sense of Light? It's a fabulous paradox. Not only that, but the immense Unlight of the place sucks the Light from the Phial. Awesome.

***

Anyway, at best this black/white thing is yet again a trivial matter aside from the main topic of this thread and serves little purpose to discussing vampires apart from maybe a wish to pedantically pick apart people's posts because not everyone can add anything more worthwhile to the topic. If you are bored then start a new thread please. Sorry, harsh, but it's getting tiresome that every thread gets hijacked/trolled like this by one or two folk - examples etc are given but if you choose to discount them because there is an N in the month then there isn't a lot of point discussing side issues as it's not that delightful illuminating madness you sometimes get on here but more arguing for the sake of 'winning'. I'm going to have to start putting people onto 'ignore' for my own sanity soon or ask you to kindly go outside and set your dogs on davem in the playground, it causes less mess :(

***

Now back to what Bethberry said about Dorien Grey - that's interesting as I often saw this as similar to the idea of vampires somehow needing to feed in order to maintain their youth and good looks. Of course Elves fade away eventually left to their own devices in Middle-earth and I often wonder if what Galadriel did in setting up and running Lothlorien was an attempt to 'keep young and beautiful' by putting all that firey fea into her Art instead of letting it burn her up.

I'm also starting to wonder about the possibility of a vampiric nature to Sauron with his once-upon-a-time ability to look incredibly beautiful and in so doing to seduce the Elves of Eregion. That certainly reminds me of Dracula...

[Morthoron]

Morthoron, there's enough examples on here now to show that Tolkien equating light with good, dark with evil was anything but consistently shown! ;) And to add that the Gondorians built Orthanc out of black stone and the walls of Minas Tirith too. I believe that white flowers grow in Morgul Vale, and Saruman's symbol is the White Hand. Far from setting up a simplistic white/black symbolism Tolkien plays with the perceived cultural notions of white/back = good/evil - not all shades of black are bad, not all shades of white are good. It's been brought up many a time to counter the accusation that Tolkien is simplistic and uses traditionally racist symbolism.

I don't know why you keep bringing up racism. It is not an aspect which I believe is germane here, merely inflammatory.

Course if you want to just win an argument or make a point you may disregard all these examples which show Tolkien was not being so straightforwards. ;) Yes there are contrasts, but they are by no means fixed - Tolkien also turns traditional contrasts upside down.

I am trying to 'win an argument', but your debate is antithetical to winning? Yet I suppose my rhetoric does not match your reason. Perhaps if I add a smiley emoticon that will mitigate any ill-will engendered by a perceived slight.;)

Rather than comparing white and black or light and darkness, and equating these with good and bad, what Tolkien does is set up the contrast of Light and Unlight, neither of which require either brightness or darkness, black or white. A very different thing altogether. In his world darkness can be very beautiful - Varda's stars against the night sky for example, or Arwen's hair, and brightness can be horrific - the bright flames at the heart of Mount Doom or the awesome Balrog.

I will not argue your observation regarding the contrast of 'light and unlight' as that is merely semantics. I will point out that nearly every reference to evil or corruption has an adjective like 'shadowy', 'swarthy', 'dark', 'black', etc. Morgoth's malice is viewed as 'dark and terrible' There is a reference to 'Death's shadow' (which ties in nicely with your 'unlight' allusion). Are there variations on the theme or instances of direct opposition? Certainly, and I stated that nothing about Tolkien was simplistic; but generally speaking (and I believe I used the case of generality previously), the references to evil are dark (or 'unlight' if you wish):

Now the Orcs that multiplied in the darkness of the earth grew strong and fell, and their dark lord filled them with a lust of ruin and death; and they issued from Angband's gates under the clouds that Morgoth sent forth...

The Nazgul in LotR are described as 'Black Riders', 'black figures' or 'black men' who are stongest in 'dark and loneliness'. They have been sent by the 'Dark Lord' of 'Mordor' (wherein the 'Shadow lies'). The 'Black Riders' employ 'black breath', and one of their agents in Bree is a 'swarthy' Southerner.

I am sorry, but this is my perception based on the corpus in totality. If you prefer to differentiate contrasts by 'light and unlight', then I am perfectly fine with referring to Tolkien's intent in that sense.

Anyway, at best this black/white thing is yet again a trivial matter aside from the main topic of this thread and serves little purpose to discussing vampires apart from maybe a wish to pedantically pick apart people's posts because not everyone can add anything more worthwhile to the topic. If you are bored then start a new thread please. Sorry, harsh, but it's getting tiresome that every thread gets hijacked/trolled like this by one or two folk - examples etc are given but if you choose to discount them because there is an N in the month then there isn't a lot of point discussing side issues as it's not that delightful illuminating madness you sometimes get on here but more arguing for the sake of 'winning'. I'm going to have to start putting people onto 'ignore' for my own sanity soon or ask you to kindly go outside and set your dogs on davem in the playground, it causes less mess

If you are referring to me, then I beg everyone's pardon (even though I did not start the digression, but continued it -- as you did). But I should have immediately deferred to your imminent and decidedly more appropriate opinion. I don't know what came over me. In future, I will nod my head dutifully whenever you make a pronouncement, particularly in regards to digressive discussions you are participating in.

Now where were we, ah yes...Bethberry, in regards to 'The Picture of Dorian Gray': do you think that Tolkien, based on his religious inclination, would have read or appreciated Oscar Wilde? Aside from the Dorian Grayish nature of the Elves, it is interesting to think of Bilbo after years of holding the Ring feeling 'thin and stretched', while maintaining his outward appearance, yet behaving in a manner uncharacteristic of his kindly nature (the portrait and the Ring being similar). The vampirish similarities of Gollum and his cannibalistic tendencies (if one considers eating Orcs as cannibalism) seem to be a direct reflection of the effect of the ring and its eventual erosion of morality.

[sallkid]

I'm sure that gollum would have eaten hobbit, if he could get it.

I apologise, it seems i have read, watched and listened to too many adaptions of LOTR.
In the book, aragorn's device is a white tree, the banner inlaid with jewels.
It is in the BBC radio adaption that it is described as having no device. (for the life of me i can't concieve of any reason why)

[Bêthberry]

Now where were we, ah yes...Bethberry, in regards to 'The Picture of Dorian Gray': do you think that Tolkien, based on his religious inclination, would have read or appreciated Oscar Wilde? Aside from the Dorian Grayish nature of the Elves, it is interesting to think of Bilbo after years of holding the Ring feeling 'thin and stretched', while maintaining his outward appearance, yet behaving in a manner uncharacteristic of his kindly nature (the portrait and the Ring being similar). The vampirish similarities of Gollum and his cannibalistic tendencies (if one considers eating Orcs as cannibalism) seem to be a direct reflection of the effect of the ring and its eventual erosion of morality.

I wouldn't immediately make any assumptions about Tolkien simply "based on his religious inclination", as you put it, because I don't think his faith hobbled his mind in a closed way, although it certainly, as any POV, predisposed him to certain frames of reference and values. After all, he himself went through fluctuations of faith and for parts of life was not as devout a practitioner as at others.

The "Moderns vs. Tolkien" dichotomy creates a vast assumption that Tolkien didn't share anything with the Moderns, which is rather strange. After all, he grew up within a largely similar cultural and social milieu (even given that there is an identifiable English Catholic sub-strain of the culture). He had similar historical experiences as the Joyces, the Bloomsbury set, Lawrence, Shaw, Wilde even if they didn't fight in the trenches at the Somme. He was on good terms with W.H. Auden. He knew of at least intellectually the currents in the scientific community at Oxford and in England at large--he wasn't cloistered. Even his love of philology and Old English was absolutely spot on in terms of currency of ideas, although now perhaps it is regarded as a bit of a dustheap of history (by some).

In short, I think he shared some of the same cultural issues as the Moderns (using that word very broadly). He might have taken a different tack in understanding those topics, but he was not immune to, say, the subjects of beauty, art, indulgence, taste. The lure of beauty and the depiction of beauty as truth is central to his art. I think it would be really interesting to consider some of the similarities he had with the Wildes before automatically assuming he had nothing in common with them. I think it is entirely possible he understood vampires in--dare I say it--an allegorical way--perhaps the better term is vampirism--and explored it within the context of his thought. In fact, his very defense of art as culturally, historically, socially significant takes it out of the mere realm of personal hedonism, although even there one could explore that topic too, as you have done here about Bilbo.

Dearie me, I have run on and now run out of time. Must dash.

[Lalwendë]

The "Moderns vs. Tolkien" dichotomy creates a vast assumption that Tolkien didn't share anything with the Moderns, which is rather strange. After all, he grew up within a largely similar cultural and social milieu (even given that there is an identifiable English Catholic sub-strain of the culture). He had similar historical experiences as the Joyces, the Bloomsbury set, Lawrence, Shaw, Wilde even if they didn't fight in the trenches at the Somme. He was on good terms with W.H. Auden. He knew of at least intellectually the currents in the scientific community at Oxford and in England at large--he wasn't cloistered. Even his love of philology and Old English was absolutely spot on in terms of currency of ideas, although now perhaps it is regarded as a bit of a dustheap of history (by some).



Good call. And we now know from the Companion & Guide that his reading tastes included some highly Modern literature, not only was he a sci-fi fan but he even like Iris Murdoch (and she liked him, too, happily ;) ). Tolkien was not known to be fond of the Bloomsbury Set and the aesthetic movement in general, but that was rather through taste than any prejudice about their inclinations - he was a friend to Auden and worked alongside some infamously homosexual dons and students - one contemporary mentioned in Letters was the Warden of Wadham, Professor of Poetry and eventual Vice Chancellor Maurice Bowra who was terrifyingly eccentric. If he did not like Wilde then it would be down to simple taste.

[THE Ka]

If he did not like Wilde then it would be down to simple taste.


Very good point. :) I've often wondered about that, how well Wilde and Tolkien might fair discussing ideals. Then again, thinking about Wilde we have to remember that Ruskin was a great influence to his literary and social development while at Oxford, which makes me wonder if this might have any or much influence on how Tolkien would see Wilde's taste of writing. I'm not generally sure, so, if anyone knows more on the matter I'd be interested.

I don't really think at all it would be much of a difference of matters of religious thought, as Wilde was very much attracted to Catholicism when at Oxford, and seemed (like many other aesthetes in their older years...) latter in his life to return to it more as a personal matter than as a pinacle of overall change in his writing before and after Reading Gaol.


~ Wildely Ka

[Morthoron]

In short, I think he shared some of the same cultural issues as the Moderns (using that word very broadly). He might have taken a different tack in understanding those topics, but he was not immune to, say, the subjects of beauty, art, indulgence, taste. The lure of beauty and the depiction of beauty as truth is central to his art. I think it would be really interesting to consider some of the similarities he had with the Wildes before automatically assuming he had nothing in common with them. I think it is entirely possible he understood vampires in--dare I say it--an allegorical way--perhaps the better term is vampirism--and explored it within the context of his thought. In fact, his very defense of art as culturally, historically, socially significant takes it out of the mere realm of personal hedonism, although even there one could explore that topic too, as you have done here about Bilbo.

You are, of course, correct, and I thank you for the profound comparative analysis.

Another thought, perhaps the Ring itself could be considered vampiric, or maybe parasitic would be a better term, latching onto a host and insidiously draining one's moral fiber down to the last shred of humanity -- to the point where the Ring has drank the soul of its host, leaving only a wraith where once stood a man (or Hobbit).

[Lalwendë]

Very good point. I've often wondered about that, how well Wilde and Tolkien might fair discussing ideals. Then again, thinking about Wilde we have to remember that Ruskin was a great influence to his literary and social development while at Oxford, which makes me wonder if this might have any or much influence on how Tolkien would see Wilde's taste of writing. I'm not generally sure, so, if anyone knows more on the matter I'd be interested.

I don't really think at all it would be much of a difference of matters of religious thought, as Wilde was very much attracted to Catholicism when at Oxford, and seemed (like many other aesthetes in their older years...) latter in his life to return to it more as a personal matter than as a pinacle of overall change in his writing before and after Reading Gaol.


~ Wildely Ka

I wondered when your aesthete antennae would start to oscillate wildly (ooo, corny...;) ).

There is of course a great chance that Tolkien did like Wilde's work as there was a shared common ground of influence, including Morris and the pre-Raphaelites, a love of fairy tale and then Catholicism. The plays would maybe not be to Tolkien's tatste given his dislike of written drama, but he may have enjoyed some of the poetry and prose - I must see what I can find in Companion & Guide later on today.

I think what some people are getting at with reference to Tolkien's religion is that he would have disliked Wilde because he was gay. That's not only simplistic but wrong. There is no knowledge of Tolkien ever having been a homophobe, only evidence to the contrary, that he was friends with and worked alongside many outwardly gay writers and academics all his life without any fuss whatsoever. The issue was just not on his radar. Indeed, I doubt someone could have functioned in 20th century Oxford if they were not tolerant!

Now what Tolkien was known to dislike was the aesthetic movement - indeed he satirises the Bloomsbury set in his creation of the Sackville-Baggins clan - at Oxford in his youth and for some time afterwards students fell into one of two 'camps' (for want of a better word ;) ) - the foppish and effeminate aesthetes such as Wilde, Betjeman (yes, Betjeman was straight - foppishness did not equal homosexuality, it was an artistic choice), etc, versus the hearty types who loved beer and rugger and rowing, even if they were too drunk to be engaged in much sport! Lewis squarely fell into the latter camp and Tolkien was of that mind too, but less militantly so, possibly as he was a young married man with kids to bring up! But maybe too as he did not wish to be categorised? Oxford can be very stifling like that.

Later, towards the 30s, many aesthetes changed and became more 'socially aware' resulting in the more 'manly' and far less foppish types of Spender and Auden and eventually the 'angry young men' more reactionary (but ruddy well funny) types like Kingsley Amis and Philip Larkin (his novel Jill should be required reading for any new Oxford student - it is so funny and sad!)- these are quite common 'types' still found at Oxford today - and you still also get some fops and the hearties never went away.

See the work of Evelyn Waugh for more on Aesthetes (and Catholics) - ironic as he was an insider to the movement of the aesthetes yet he satirises them perfectly in Bridehead Revisited - the bear, Aloysius, carried everywhere by Sebastian Flyte is based on John Betjeman's bear Archibald Ormsby-Gore - and this bear still exists, as I saw him in the Bodleian last year - quite sad really, looking at the beloved toy of a lovely, eccentric old poet. :(

Ooo, got carried away there....Though it does contribute towards the topic of vampires in Tolkien by providing some rambling background and it kept me out of mischief for a few minutes...

[Babidi Buu]

I pretty much imagined Vampires to be like the Humanoid looking kind (Like Dracula) Until i read the one part in the Sill.(I think "Of Luthian and Beren") After that, I just imagined it to be Bat-like. Although the minature piccy from the Games Workshop looks kinda cute:p Overall, it looks like Some kind of Mix of Balrog and Dragon:confused:

[Aaron]

Can someone please direct me to the book in which Tolkien deals with Vampires? Being a favourite fantasy creature of mine I would very much like to read his take on them.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Can someone please direct me to the book in which Tolkien deals with Vampires? Being a favourite fantasy creature of mine I would very much like to read his take on them.

Unfortunately, there's just very, very, very short and vague remark of them in the Silmarillion, particularly in the tale of Beren and Lúthien. I am not sure if in some of the History of Middle-Earth books there may not be more, maybe there's more in the full-length version of Beren and Lúthien's tale, so something may be for example in the Lays of Beleriand? (now that I have them I could finally read them! Ha-haa!). Maybe somebody else may direct you to some other places...