Is THIS how you imagined the vampires?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by davem

Sorry. When you said

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.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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.)

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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]

Originally Posted by davem

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...

[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 Overall, it looks like Some kind of Mix of Balrog and Dragon

[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.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Originally Posted by davem

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.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by davem

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]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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]

Originally Posted by davem

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]

Originally Posted by Raynor

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?