Is THIS how you imagined the vampires?

[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]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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]

Originally Posted by Raynor

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.

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by THE Ka

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...

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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).