Is THIS how you imagined the vampires?

[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]

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?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

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):

Originally Posted by Letter #144

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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]

Originally Posted by sallkid

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*

Originally Posted by sallkid

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]

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.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

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

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]

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

[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).

[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...

[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.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by 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.

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...