Is THIS how you imagined the vampires?

[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)