Is THIS how you imagined the vampires?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by davem

Of course, we do find....

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

Or am I misunderstanding your point?

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

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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

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

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

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

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[davem]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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

Sorry. When you said

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

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

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





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

[Lalwendë]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bit like the Balrog's wings eh?

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

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

[Morthoron]

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.

[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.