Melkor's depiction by artists: Flawed? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Lord Melkor · 08-21-2005, 07:24 AM

With Melkor being my favourite Vala (I know, who would've guessed it?

) I am frequently dismayed by the way mortal artists depict his looks. In fact, the majority of art in which Melkor's face can be seen have him look like some disgusting ghoul or mutant thing (I remember one artwork in particular in which Melkor was portrayed as something that would fit in quite nicely in an undead army, having no nose and all that (that would be David Days' Bestiary, for those interested)). But when one takes into account Melkor's personailty one must ask oneself this: Why would Melkor, who by all accounts could be considered vain, make himself a form that was ghastly to behold?

" Ah," you say, " But the text clearly says his form as the Dark Lord was 'terrible'! Clearly this means his form must have looked gruesome!" But lets take a closer look at the meaning of the word terrible. Though today it's usually used as a negative desciption, the word terrible used to have another meaning, more akin to 'awe-inspiring'. Take for example Galadriel's quote '....Beautiful and terrible as the dawn....' Clearly the dawn is not gruesome, ugly or disgusting to behold, but it's certainly awe-inspiring!

I believe that this is exactly how Tolkien meant his desciption of Melkor's guise as the Dark Lord, a shape of unrivalled dark glory and power, not some disgusting thing that looked partially decomposed. Granted, the scars of battle would make him unpleasant to behold (if the sneer of contempt for every creature apart from himself and his gaze which could break all but the most strongwilled person in an instant didn't do that already), I see nothing in the text to support the silly notion many artists seem to have that Melkor's facial characteristics would resemble that of a gorilla (Melkor vs Fingolfin, Ted Nasmith)

Hookbill the Goomba · 08-21-2005, 02:23 PM

An interesting question. Terrible is not describing the physical look of Melko, but rather referees to the feeling one would get to come into the presence of the most feared being in all of Middle Earth.
Firstly, Meko wanted to look threatening, not ugly, that would probably lose him his respect, fearful. If you have ever seen Morgoth's Ring, or The Lays of Beleriand, these are some of my favourite illustrations of Melko. A Dark Lord, not necessarily ugly, but someone you wouldn't like to meet all the same.

It is not unlikely that Melko (in his early days) would have appeared as a fair creature, as Sauron did in later days. But I think it says somewhere that he keeps his form of a Dark Lord. Because Tolkien gives no in-depth description of Melkor at any point I am aware of, we cannot really say what Tolkien intended him to look like. I suppose its all up to our own imaginations.

Kuruharan · 08-22-2005, 10:07 AM

I tend to agree. I don't think Morgoth was "ugly" in the way that we normally use the word. I don't think that artists get it right.

However, in their favor, it is very difficult to adequately convey "terror" in a painting. So instead of terror they attempt revulsion.

(They also usually make him too tall, but that is another story.)

Elrowen Tinúviel · 08-22-2005, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

(They also usually make him too tall, but that is another story.)

How tall is Melko/Melkor supposed to be? I myself have always thought of him being unusually tall - mainly because of his battle with Fingolfin. That part always made me think of him as rather huge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

It is not unlikely that Melko (in his early days) would have appeared as a fair creature, as Sauron did in later days.

If I'm not mistaken... he did. He caused much trouble for the Elves in the First Age, and it was either he or Sauron (on Melkor's orders), that was instrumental in the Fall of Númenor. At least with the Elves, since they abhor evil and anything ugly, when Melko wanted to decieve them, he would have to appear fair. I forget where it's written (pretty sure it's in the Silmarillion), but it says that the Elves were on occasion lured by evil that appeared fair.

Well, there's my two cents that I always have to throw in.

-Elrowen

Kuruharan · 08-22-2005, 11:41 AM

Quote:

How tall is Melko/Melkor supposed to be? I myself have always thought of him being unusually tall - mainly because of his battle with Fingolfin. That part always made me think of him as rather huge.

Like a Balrog, his body was probably not much more than 10 feet tall. Maybe around 15 on the outside, but certainly no more than that.

Maerbenn · 08-22-2005, 05:58 PM

Tolkien wrote in the essay ‘Notes on motives in the Silmarillion’ (published in HoMe X: Morgoth’s Ring) that Morgoth was “a tyrant of ogre-size” when Thangorodrim was broken.

Elrowen Tinúviel · 08-22-2005, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Like a Balrog, his body was probably not much more than 10 feet tall. Maybe around 15 on the outside, but certainly no more than that.

Oh, okay. I tend to find the answers to questions such as Melkor and Sauron's size elusive.

Balrogs are about ten feet or so tall? That was one that I've often wondered at... (the movie confused me a little on this) because in the Silmarillion, when Glorfindel fights the Balrog, he stabs it in the heart... therefore they can't be all that tall. When I think of Balrogs, I usually picture them as being huge... and yet that cannot be, for the average height of the Elves is around six feet or so...

-Elrowen

08-21-2005, 07:24 AM	#1
Lord Melkor Haunting Spirit Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 78	Melkor's depiction by artists: Flawed? With Melkor being my favourite Vala (I know, who would've guessed it? ) I am frequently dismayed by the way mortal artists depict his looks. In fact, the majority of art in which Melkor's face can be seen have him look like some disgusting ghoul or mutant thing (I remember one artwork in particular in which Melkor was portrayed as something that would fit in quite nicely in an undead army, having no nose and all that (that would be David Days' Bestiary, for those interested)). But when one takes into account Melkor's personailty one must ask oneself this: Why would Melkor, who by all accounts could be considered vain, make himself a form that was ghastly to behold? " Ah," you say, " But the text clearly says his form as the Dark Lord was 'terrible'! Clearly this means his form must have looked gruesome!" But lets take a closer look at the meaning of the word terrible. Though today it's usually used as a negative desciption, the word terrible used to have another meaning, more akin to 'awe-inspiring'. Take for example Galadriel's quote '....Beautiful and terrible as the dawn....' Clearly the dawn is not gruesome, ugly or disgusting to behold, but it's certainly awe-inspiring! I believe that this is exactly how Tolkien meant his desciption of Melkor's guise as the Dark Lord, a shape of unrivalled dark glory and power, not some disgusting thing that looked partially decomposed. Granted, the scars of battle would make him unpleasant to behold (if the sneer of contempt for every creature apart from himself and his gaze which could break all but the most strongwilled person in an instant didn't do that already), I see nothing in the text to support the silly notion many artists seem to have that Melkor's facial characteristics would resemble that of a gorilla (Melkor vs Fingolfin, Ted Nasmith)

08-21-2005, 02:23 PM	#2
Hookbill the Goomba Alive without breath Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: On A Cold Wind To Valhalla Posts: 5,912	An interesting question. Terrible is not describing the physical look of Melko, but rather referees to the feeling one would get to come into the presence of the most feared being in all of Middle Earth. Firstly, Meko wanted to look threatening, not ugly, that would probably lose him his respect, fearful. If you have ever seen Morgoth's Ring, or The Lays of Beleriand, these are some of my favourite illustrations of Melko. A Dark Lord, not necessarily ugly, but someone you wouldn't like to meet all the same. It is not unlikely that Melko (in his early days) would have appeared as a fair creature, as Sauron did in later days. But I think it says somewhere that he keeps his form of a Dark Lord. Because Tolkien gives no in-depth description of Melkor at any point I am aware of, we cannot really say what Tolkien intended him to look like. I suppose its all up to our own imaginations. __________________ I think that if you want facts, then The Downer Newspaper is probably the place to go. I know! I read it once. THE PHANTOM AND ALIEN: The Legend of the Golden Bus Ticket...

08-22-2005, 10:07 AM	#3
Kuruharan Regal Dwarven Shade Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: A Remote Dwarven Hold Posts: 3,593	I tend to agree. I don't think Morgoth was "ugly" in the way that we normally use the word. I don't think that artists get it right. However, in their favor, it is very difficult to adequately convey "terror" in a painting. So instead of terror they attempt revulsion. (They also usually make him too tall, but that is another story.) __________________ ...finding a path that cannot be found, walking a road that cannot be seen, climbing a ladder that was never placed, or reading a paragraph that has no... Last edited by Kuruharan; 08-22-2005 at 08:16 PM.

08-22-2005, 05:58 PM	#6
Maerbenn Haunting Spirit Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 59	Tolkien wrote in the essay ‘Notes on motives in the Silmarillion’ (published in HoMe X: Morgoth’s Ring) that Morgoth was “a tyrant of ogre-size” when Thangorodrim was broken.