# Tolkien's Elves



## WyrdMystic (Oct 11, 2012)

Here’s one that should strike up some decent debate — three questions. 

1.	Why do people think Tolkien invented Elves? 
2.	Why do people warn of copying Tolkien’s elves when they were in fact (aside from the genius language created by Tolkien) copies themselves?
3.	Why is using elves different to using vampires, werewolves or any other mythological creature?


Discuss.

Background - 

Tolkien did not invent elves. He invented a language for them to speak, pure genius, but they were around for centuries before Tolkien. All the way from Norse and Germanic mythology where they are depicted as tall, strong heroes with pointed ears and believed to be divine — having the power to help or hinder humans as they choose — through to Old English mythology where they were pests thought to cause nightmares and hiccups.

No-one using elves is ripping off Tolkien. They are not his invention.

Goes for mining Dwarves too — creatures living in mountains associated with craft and technology. Apparent in Norse, Germanic and Old English mythology alike. In fact — one Norse dwarf got so greedy with stockpiling his gold he turned into a dragon (sound familiar)?


----------



## shangrila (Oct 11, 2012)

1. Because he was the first author to use them that achieved worldwide fame.
2. A few reasons. Firstly, it's because his elves are more well known then the creatures they were based on. Secondly, a lot of people DID copy him after his success, so it's just one of those things that gets repeated. And thirdly, the warning goes for any popular work; for example, if you were writing a story about a wizard who goes to a school you'd be warned about using elements that Harry Potter used.
3. Probably because they've been used so much they've become a staple and cliche of fantasy, same as orcs, dwarves and wizards. I don't think vampires and werewolves was a good example though, given Twilight and all the other pseudo-clones that have sprung up since their success, but I definitely think that, say, lizard men could be used without getting as much scorn as elves.

I will say, no matter the cliche, you can still make them unique. Even on here there was a poster, I can't remember his name, who was going to write a story about a bunch of elves that had fallen and been forced to go feral to survive. I thought that was a freaking amazing idea for a story and a really unique twist on elves without doing anything that would have them making more sense as a new race.


----------



## WyrdMystic (Oct 11, 2012)

Tolkien is the most famous but not the first. The reason I said vampires is mainly because people get more irked when you change them than if you kept them largely the same. As for harry potter, I was watching the worst witch long before potter yet i would get accused of copying harry potter, not the worst witch. Why though, are people required to change elves at all?  They are a staple of mythology. You wouldn't get accused of copying if you used humans. As long as the story is unique, why not keep them in their original form?


----------



## shangrila (Oct 11, 2012)

I think, partially, it's because Tolkien put his own spin on elves. If I remember correctly they weren't the same higher beings whose civilisation had fallen in mythology that they are in Middle Earth.

As far as vampires go, I don't have an answer for you. It might be because they've remained largely unchanged through thousands of years; blood sucking creatures are spoken about in civilisations like Babylon, for example, whereas elves weren't as widespread.


----------



## WyrdMystic (Oct 11, 2012)

Actually, they were exactly the same in Norse mythology, and Germanic - apart from the civilastion having fallen, which I wouldn't say was true of LOTR anyway, they had just chosen isolationism.

So then would it be okay to use elves as they truly were, before Tolkien changed them?


----------



## Guru Coyote (Oct 11, 2012)

Thing is, if one were to go and research mythological elves (germanic Alben) etc, and base one's race on them... people would still compare it with Tolkien. Same goes for boy-wizanrds going to school. Harry Potter was by no means the first to use this element. I think this is simply a rule of media-acclaim. The first to achieve mainstream acceptance will be seen as the "first" and as the standard.
Something similar happens with foods: imagine having grown up with apple-pie and apple-scented soap. Now imagine your first contact with a Real Apple like it grows on trees. I've seen kids go "yuck" more than once. Real apples do not smell like the apple-perfumed soaps.

What we all need to realize is that there is no such thing as "original idea". We might take what was done before and put out own (unique) spin on it. But we are all standing on the shoulders of giants, building on the wealth of stories out anchestors and peers have given us.


----------



## WyrdMystic (Oct 11, 2012)

Guru Coyote said:


> Thing is, if one were to go and research mythological elves (germanic Alben) etc, and base one's race on them... people would still compare it with Tolkien.



Yet if you re-name them, call them something other than what they are, you may end up being credited with their invention. There's just something inherantly wrong about that.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 11, 2012)

I don't know anyone who thinks he invented them, though he is widely associated with their use. There is nothing wrong with using them on the same way if that's what you want to write.


----------



## Christopher Wright (Oct 11, 2012)

It's just the way it is. Tolkien's work has become so universally popular, and is so genre defining, that anything similar to it will be compared to it, and not the historical roots of it. It's the same with Dwarves.[1]

My advice is don't let the bastards get you down. There will be plenty of people willing to read a story about elves, and if you write it well enough, even some of the people who say they won't probably will.[2]

---------------
[1] Although for some reason now whenever people think of Dwarves they think of short guys with Scottish accents. That I don't get.

[2] But they'll claim to be doing it "ironically," like the loser hipsters they are. ;-)


----------



## Chilari (Oct 11, 2012)

Guru Coyote said:


> Something similar happens with foods: imagine having grown up with apple-pie and apple-scented soap. Now imagine your first contact with a Real Apple like it grows on trees. I've seen kids go "yuck" more than once. Real apples do not smell like the apple-perfumed soaps.



Just gonna go off topic for a sec and ask what kind of parents brings their kid up without apples but with apple soap? That's bizarre. Maybe it's just that I've got the perspective of having always lived somewhere with apple trees and vegetable gardens (and for that matter, there was a walnut tree in the garden of the house we lived in until I was 5) so I've always seen standard British-grown fruit and veg in fresh, straight from the tree/ground version first, before the apple pie or apple scented soap and so on. But still, that's such a weird thing, not to have apples just there, in the fruit bowl in the kitchen the whole of your formative years.

Back on topic, my feelings regarding mythical beings like elves, vampires, etc, are fairly mixed. My biggest objection to people using them would be laziness. If they're using Tolkeinesque elves who live in woods and are good archers, I have to wonder if they've thought in any depth about them, or whether they stuck them in because fantasy and left them like that becuase they're lazy. I'd rather see a well developed human society than a poorly developed elven one.

On the other hand, a mythical being is what it is. If the fundametals are messed with - if, say, someone gets called a werewolf but they're actually a human with wolf ears and tail, and nothing happens at the full moon to change that, that's not really a werewolf, that's a furry. A wolfman or something - and yes I know linguistically it means the same thing, but the thing that is called a werewolf has specific characteristics and messing with those too much - the key ones here being transformation between human and wolf, the full moon being involved in some way (either making it possible, easier or obligatory), and silver bullets killing them.

So with vampires I object to the Twilight version on the basis that they've been messed with too much. I would argue that being hurt by sunlight (in some versions bursting into flames) is a key characteristic of vampires, after drinking blood and the two main means of killing one being wooden stake to the heart and beheading. So being sparkly in sunlight is a cop-out of one of the main weaknesses of vampires. I would also argue that being evil and manipulative is a pretty important to being a vampire, though not perhaps a defining characteristic, so I'm really not a fan of "good" vampires either (though some work). Having said that, while most people might consider a vampire's weakness to holy water and the sign of the cross being key characteristics, I don't, or rather, I prefer them to be explained with a reason other than "because of Jesus", because I'm an atheist so it just doesn't work for me. If the reason a cross works is the power of belief, and thus any religious symbol would work, I'll just about accept it; I prefer to have no religious symbols working and having it being some sort of urban myth propagated by priests and allowed by vampires because it's funny/makes their lives easier if people walk around at night because they think a cross will protect them, etc. And as far as garlic is concerned, I actually forget about it quite a lot really. Just doesn't seem that important.

So I guess what I'm saying is, as far as vampires are concerned, it's complicated. It's a personal reaction based partly on my own beliefs and what I'm willing to suspend disbelief for. I'm sure many would disagree with my personal view of what a vampire is.

The thing is, mythical beings tend to have more than one defining characteristic. Vampires, for example, have several. A being that drinks blood isn't necessarily a vampire. A being that drinks blood, can only be killed with a wooden stake to the heart or by being beheaded, is harmed by sunlight, is severely allergic to garlic and rather fond of bats is a vampire. If a writer needs a blood drinking creature that only emerges at night, a vampire isn't the only answer. It's the obvious one, but not the only one. Why not create something that's two feet tall, looks a bit like a goblin, feeds on blood (not necessarily human), is nocturnal, has a thing for riding piglets and sometimes steals yellow-coloured things? If you want a romantic interest who is darkly attractive, mysterious, shunned, not human or not quite human, has super strength and immune to certain types of injury, then while a vampire might be the obvious choice, you could also have a demon, fallen angel or nephilim; or he could be the son of the god of the underworld, or some sort of nature spirit (like a nymph but male) associated with a battlefield or other location with a dark history, or just a human who had died but escaped the underworld and is now running from whatever dark beings are coming to drag him back.

I'd rather people were more inventive with what non-human beings they use because there's greater scope to be interesting, to surprise and intruige. Part of what makes some things interesting is the mystery. Not knowing how to fight something makes it so much more threatening. Not understanding why yellow things are so important to this little goblin thing gives a reader a question they want the answer to. Seeing the same thing over and over and over again gets boring, because you know, in the end, exactly how things are most likely to end. And predictability isn't interesting.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 11, 2012)

Since vampires and elves don't exist, my feeling is you can do whatever you like with them. There are a wide range of variations on both of these in the published literature. Taking a strict adherence to the nature of an underlying myth, can you ever read alternate history or even historical fiction ? In other words, if changing something about a made up creature bothers you how do you approach works that deal with actual occurrences and real people?


----------



## Guru Coyote (Oct 11, 2012)

Chilari said:


> Just gonna go off topic for a sec and ask what kind of parents brings their kid up without apples but with apple soap? That's bizarre. Maybe it's just that I've got the perspective of having always lived somewhere with apple trees and vegetable gardens (and for that matter, there was a walnut tree in the garden of the house we lived in until I was 5) so I've always seen standard British-grown fruit and veg in fresh, straight from the tree/ground version first, before the apple pie or apple scented soap and so on. But still, that's such a weird thing, not to have apples just there, in the fruit bowl in the kitchen the whole of your formative years.



It is bizarre, but it's more common than one might think. And if you take exotic fruit into account... I happen to have spent my early youth in a place where we would pluck papayas, mangos and guavas directly from the tree. Coming back to Europe, I could not understand why people went nuts over things that didn't even come close to tasting like the real thing. 

And a note on mythological creatures and their characteristics in historical lore... there is never a definite standard for anything in any lore. Just take the unicorn. A creature of peace that will only let virgins ride it? I can find a few historical bestiaries where the unicorn is depicted more like a monster you wouldn't want to meet alone in a forrest. The guardian of the forrest and a vicious killer.
Or take Egyptian Gods... I recently looked up Bastet, the cat-headed goddess of fertility. It is not an uniform story. You need to know which epic and what sekt you are talking about to know who Bastet is and what she looks like. Still, the name Bastet will put an image into most minds instantly.


----------



## eodauthor (Oct 11, 2012)

I am currently writing a fantasy novel with many of the seemingly cliche characters, i.e., elves, gnomes, trolls, etc., but I have altered them slightly to give the reader another perspective. For instance; my elf characters are called "Shadow Elves," and I describe them like this: (an excerpt from my novel)

_“We are here with you,” a friendly voice said. “Look into the shadows.”
Ã„sta stared at the shadows on the forest floor, but could see nothing.
A voice, tinged with mild humor corrected her. “No, Ã„sta,” it said. “Do not look at the shadows; look into them, and look closer to the trees.”
Curious now, despite her growing fear, Ã„sta shifted her gaze from the shadow on the ground to a point at the base of the nearest tree. She allowed her eyes to focus deeper into the shadow, as if looking into its depths, and was startled to see a shape emerge.
She recoiled in shock and put her hand over her open mouth in amazement. “I can see you,” she said, her voice filled with awe. “What are you?”
The dark shape emerged farther from the tree shadow and coalesced into a short, childlike appearance. It looked like a normal child with eyes, nose and mouth on a smooth face. Its ears were pointed at the tips and the hair on its head was long, dark and straight. It had arms of normal length with small hands ending with delicate fingers. Strong legs supported the creature and bare feet seemed unaffected by the cold. As for clothing, Ã„sta could only make out a loose-fitting cloth wrap of the same color, which covered one shoulder and ended below the thing’s knees. But, the most amazing thing about the creature was its skin color. As Ã„sta looked it seemed to shift from black to something more like the forest hues of gray, brown and green. The thing’s skin was mottled with the various colors of the forest. But as it moved back into the shadow of the tree, Ã„sta gasped when its color shifted to black again.
“We are the shadow elves,” the first voice said in Ã„sta’s mind. _

Likewise my handling of a shape-shifting character. I created a back-story on the people who evolved into these shape-shifters, which I call the Lupanora.

_The Lupanora are the sole-surviving descendants of an ancient tribe of indigenous people of the northern woodland region of the western world. For more than six hundred years, select individuals from several tribes were chosen to mate. These were selected because of certain characteristics they exhibited: mostly an affinity for the forest creatures and ability to communicate with the natural world. Their eventual offspring were cultivated and paired with others of like abilities. After a hundred generations of selected mating the first Lupanora emerged and accepted their role as guardians of the northern woodlands and friends to the wolves.
The histories of how and when the first Lupanora made the change into their animal form have been lost over the years; some say that certain forest creatures made the change first and walked among us in human form. These skin-walkers eventually took mates among the Lupanora and passed on the ability to their children.  Regardless of our origins, this much is known: not all are called to make the change, but to those who are, great power is bestowed in them. Whether one’s totem is the wolf, eagle, or bear, is decided before birth and assigned by the Great Spirit. At birth the child’s totem can be determined by a mark on the skin. And from birth that child is trained to understand and control the power of his totem.  Without this training there is a danger that the animal could take over the person’s mind and consume the host’s essence. If this were to happen, the totem would remain while the host would die. The untrained will constantly struggle to maintain control of the totem’s will while his human mind attempts to keep aware of his true self. It is this loss of self that condemns the untrained to lose their identity and become their animal totem forever._

So, I feel that if you are going to use mythic creatures that may or may not have been created by another writer, which in Tolkien's case I doubt, you should try to be somewhat unique; I mean, why just copy someone else?


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 11, 2012)

You are best off writing what speaks to you. Anyone who doesn't think standard fantasy tropes can sell across multiple books, even though presented in a largely similar form, need only go down to the nearest Barnes & Noble and look at the shelves. There's no reason to force a twist just for the sake of being unique. If you have a unique take because that take is part of what compels you about your story, then great. But if you want to write a great story while adhering to traditional fantasy representations of these races, that's fine as well.


----------



## Guru Coyote (Oct 11, 2012)

Dare I mention ElfQuest as a perfectly valid alternative view of "Elves"?

As eodauthor shows, it's not what you use, but how much thought you put into your use.


----------



## eodauthor (Oct 11, 2012)

Steerpike; of course you are correct. I suppose I did not communicate my thoughts properly. I understand that the standard, traditional take on mythical creatures has been successful and continues to be so. I was only suggesting that, like you mention, if the story moves you in a different direction...then okay. I'll give you another example: instead of a vampire, I wrote about a Wamphyr: a parasitic creature of smoke and mist that feeds on negative emotion. In its early stages it is a passive feeder, depending on agression from its prey; however, as it grows stronger it becomes more substantial, ultimately achieving its permanent corporeal state and then becomes an active feeder. There are myriad stories about Carpathian bloodsuckers, but not many that use a similar concept to tell a new story.

So, while it is perfectly all right to stick with the traditional, it is likewise fine to veer off into the strange and ...?


----------



## Mindfire (Oct 11, 2012)

WyrdMystic said:


> Here’s one that should strike up some decent debate — three questions.
> 
> 1.	Why do people think Tolkien invented Elves?
> 2.	Why do people warn of copying Tolkien’s elves when they were in fact (aside from the genius language created by Tolkien) copies themselves?
> ...



Tolkien didn't invent elves or dwarves. But what he did invent was an aesthetic, a way of using them that stuck around for decades. So often, when people use elves or dwarves they simply copy bits and pieces of that aesthetic, so their creation feels, not like an organic extension of the author, but like a bad counterfeit of someone else's work. You could make the argument that all writers copy the work of others, nothing is original, blah blah blah. But there is a difference. When an "original" work borrows ideas and concepts from another work, there is something gained in the translation: the author's voice and style. In a ripoff it always feels like something is lost in the translation. Like the derivative work is not nearly on the same level as the work it borrowed from. Not necessarily because of bad writing or bad storytelling (although that usually happens in ripoffs), but because that spark that the author is supposed to add to their version of the story is missing. Consequently, the derivative work always feels hollow and seems to lack depth. Premier example: Eragon.


----------



## Mindfire (Oct 11, 2012)

Christopher Wright said:


> Although for some reason now whenever people think of Dwarves they think of short guys with Scottish accents. That I don't get.


That'd be Peter Jackson's doing.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 11, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> That'd be Peter Jackson's doing.



Nah. It predates Jackson and shows up in video games and even in how they talk in some D&D or other gaming-related novels. Warcraft video games had it, back in the 90s (and those stemmed in part from Warhammer, which I think had it), and there's a Poul Anderson novel from the 1960s that has it as well. Some people have speculated that the idea of the scottish engineer-type ala "Scotty" from Star Trek is the root of it.


----------



## Guru Coyote (Oct 11, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> When an "original" work borrows ideas and concepts from another work, there is something gained in the translation: the author's voice and style. In a ripoff it always feels like something is lost in the translation. Like the derivative work is not nearly on the same level as the work it borrowed from.



That puts it nicely I think. 

Returning to the "no new ideas" meme, you could say that the difference is if a work "builds on what came before" as opposed to "just a weak copy". The value added, the extra spark then is what makes a work "unique" and maybe not so much the original concepts - which might not even be possible.


----------



## Weaver (Oct 11, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Nah. It predates Jackson and shows up in video games and even in how they talk in some D&D or other gaming-related novels. Warcraft video games had it, back in the 90s (and those stemmed in part from Warhammer, which I think had it), and there's a Poul Anderson novel from the 1960s that has it as well. Some people have speculated that the idea of the scottish engineer-type ala "Scotty" from Star Trek is the root of it.



My hypothesis on the connection between Dwarves and Scottish accents:  There's supposed to be a gene for 'engineering talent' and such (I'm not going to take sides on that) which is reputed to be more common amongst people of Scottish ancestry.  Dwarves are generally supposed to have innate skill when it comes to making things (engineering), especially things made of metal.  So the "logical" conclusion was that Dwarves would sound like Scots...

(The cliche of the Scottish engineer is far older than Scotty from _Star Trek_.  Could have something to do with a Scot inventing the steam engine, my twin says.)


----------



## Mindfire (Oct 11, 2012)

Weaver said:


> My hypothesis on the connection between Dwarves and Scottish accents:  There's supposed to be a gene for 'engineering talent' and such (I'm not going to take sides on that) which is reputed to be more common amongst people of Scottish ancestry.  Dwarves are generally supposed to have innate skill when it comes to making things (engineering), especially things made of metal.  So the "logical" conclusion was that Dwarves would sound like Scots...
> 
> (The cliche of the Scottish engineer is far older than Scotty from _Star Trek_.  Could have something to do with a Scot inventing the steam engine, my twin says.)



I read somewhere on this forum that the Greeks and Egyptians had knowledge of the steam engine.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 11, 2012)

Pertinent?

“Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it.” ~ C.S. Lewis (1898 — 1963)


----------



## Grimbold (Oct 11, 2012)

I play alot, well, used to, play alot of Warhammer, so my dwarves/elves/goblins ect are more Warhammerish than anything else, minus the gunpowder and scottish accents... 

Also, did the scotts had alot of dockyards as far as i remember? Like glasgow was famous for it i think (going only on Billy Connolly standup here though)


----------



## psychotick (Oct 12, 2012)

Hi,

I'm not sure that there's any mythological creature that hasn't been used of somewhere in a fantasy novel of some sort, so the chances of using one, be it elves or vampires, and not being compared to another work of fantasy, are small.

As for elves I'd say that the background mythology on them before Tolkein, and the number of different interpretations of them in various works and games, are so broad that it's hard to write them in a way that would ruffle too many feathers. I suppose if you made your elves somewhat brutish, poor archers much preferring a spiked club, and with a deep seated love of concrete cities, some might have their noses put slightly out of joint.

Vampires on the other hand, they've been through the wringer, and when Bram Stoker did her bit for the genre there was never a thought of them being teenage heartthrobs. That concept goes straight against the heart of what a vampire is supposed to be, which is essentially a monster. Sure maybe in the movies they had some sort of seductive allure against the ladies, but that was pretty much so they could get them close and rip their throats out. It wasn't so they could have a deep and meaningful romance with a teenage girl.

Excuse me - got to go now - feeling somewhat nauseas!!!

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Chilari (Oct 12, 2012)

Mindfire said:
			
		

> I read somewhere on this forum that the Greeks and Egyptians had knowledge of the steam engine.



Off the top of my head, 1st century AD Alexandria, a steam engine was produced as a curio, a toy, but since the industrial means to make large engines in great numbers didn't exist it never got further than that. Alexandria being what it is, probably someone of both Greek and Egyptian ancestry living under Roman rule.


----------



## Sheriff Woody (Oct 12, 2012)

I have not extensively researched the validity of this notion, so take this with a grain of salt...but on studying the Disney film Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, I discovered that many people would continually misspell 'dwarfs' in the title because Tolkein's spelling of 'dwarves' had become so popular. Now, perhaps the same can be said for 'elfs' and 'elves', as I don't believe I've ever seen anyone use the former spelling...but I don't honestly know. Just something to think about.


----------



## Mindfire (Oct 12, 2012)

Sheriff Woody said:


> I have not extensively researched the validity of this notion, so take this with a grain of salt...but on studying the Disney film Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, I discovered that many people would continually misspell 'dwarfs' in the title because Tolkein's spelling of 'dwarves' had become so popular. Now, perhaps the same can be said for 'elfs' and 'elves', as I don't believe I've ever seen anyone use the former spelling...but I don't honestly know. Just something to think about.



Also, "elfin" vs. "elven", another Tolkien-ism.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 12, 2012)

I'm not sure that usage originated with Tolkien. Just another thing he gets credited for as a foundation of the genre.


----------



## SeverinR (Oct 12, 2012)

WyrdMystic said:


> Here’s one that should strike up some decent debate — three questions.
> 
> 1.	Why do people think Tolkien invented Elves?
> 2.	Why do people warn of copying Tolkien’s elves when they were in fact (aside from the genius language created by Tolkien) copies themselves?
> ...


1; Tolkien needed a supporting race of beings, he prefered elves over the others.
2; No matter what you write about, make it yours.  Don't try to make it like someone elses.  

3: each race or creature has predetermined traits linked to lore or fables, if you change the lore, you make your beings special(sparkly vampires that can see sunlight without burning up).  You still work with everyone's preconceived notions of a being, so we tend to pick the traditional races rather then make orcs the friendly noble people or outright make a new race. 

Not sure how long sadistic Santa had his elven toy making slaves , but I believe Santa had elves when Tolkien wrote about his elves.


----------



## Shockley (Oct 13, 2012)

First off, I love elves, dwarves, gnomes, etc. Especially gnomes. I think they're wonderful, and I use them a bit (though I prefer some of my own creations). But there are a few misconceptions about the Nordic and Germanic myth which I am particularly qualified to tackle.

 The elf in Germanic/Nordic mythology, first of all, was not tall, slender, pointy-eared, etc. Those are all modern additions to the original myth. In the traditional Germanic prayers, poems, etc. we find something unique about them: They are always listed with the gods, sometimes sandwiched between the As/Aesir/Os and the Wan/Van/Vanir. It seems, for all intents and purposes, that elves in the broadest sense were just another class of god.

 This is amplified by the idea that Freyr, one of the Vanir, was the 'Lord of Alfheim (Lord of Elf-Home). Freyr was most certainly associated with this class of divines, and was seen as a more natural god than those of the Aesir. He was associated with rain, fertility, etc. So when we see 'Alfr' in the ancient sources, we're really reading something that should read like 'Nature Spirit.' Some of them are described as being able to walk through walls, turn invisible, etc. 

 We know that the Old Norse sacrificed to the Alfr.

 The Dvergr, of which the modern dwarf concept is derived, were smiths and miners. But that was not really their nature - they evolved from the maggots who had been birthed in the flesh of Ymir, so they became miners/smiths because they already lived deep in the earth (which was Ymir's corpse). Tolkien just added a nicer spin to mythic figures that were often jealous, selfish, lusty and committed criminal acts from theft to rape on a regular basis. 

 The distinction between what was Dvergr and what was Alfr was not always clear. They express that there is a distinction, but plenty of the Dvergr mentioned in the myths have names that seem better suited for Alfr. For example, one of the dwarves listed in the Poetic Edda has the name 'Alfr.' Alberich  (Alb being a more Germanic form of Alfr) of the Nibelungenlied is also a Dvergr. 

 That also brings us to the Dokkalfr, or 'Dark Elves.' These were 'bad' alfr who lived outside of Alfheim and in the earth. In essence, these are almost certainly the Dvergr of above. Throw in the Svartalfr (black elves) who are crafters (Svartalfr, not Dvergr, are the beings who craft the rope which holds Fenrisulfr), and you have an obvious idea pointing to Dvergr being lesser forms of Alfr, or just lesser gods.

 So whenever we see an elf outside of that mold, we're seeing Tolkien's influences.


----------



## WyrdMystic (Oct 13, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I'm not sure that usage originated with Tolkien. Just another thing he gets credited for as a foundation of the genre.



No it didn't Lord Dunsany was one of the first to use elves in fantasy, before the genre was named, in The King of Elfland's Daughter.


----------



## WyrdMystic (Oct 13, 2012)

Shockley said:


> First off, I love elves, dwarves, gnomes, etc. Especially gnomes. I think they're wonderful, and I use them a bit (though I prefer some of my own creations). But there are a few misconceptions about the Nordic and Germanic myth which I am particularly qualified to tackle.
> 
> The elf in Germanic/Nordic mythology, first of all, was not tall, slender, pointy-eared, etc. Those are all modern additions to the original myth. In the traditional Germanic prayers, poems, etc. we find something unique about them: They are always listed with the gods, sometimes sandwiched between the As/Aesir/Os and the Wan/Van/Vanir. It seems, for all intents and purposes, that elves in the broadest sense were just another class of god.
> 
> ...



Beg to differ, but the God Frey, Lord of the Light elves, was depicted as an a tall, strong warrior. The hero Volundr not only tall, but you can also see the pointy ears poking through his hair in some illustrations. These may not have been the original mythological descriptions, but the illustrations pre-date tolkien nonetheless.


----------



## Weaver (Oct 13, 2012)

Sheriff Woody said:


> I have not extensively researched the validity of this notion, so take this with a grain of salt...but on studying the Disney film Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, I discovered that many people would continually misspell 'dwarfs' in the title because Tolkein's spelling of 'dwarves' had become so popular. Now, perhaps the same can be said for 'elfs' and 'elves', as I don't believe I've ever seen anyone use the former spelling...but I don't honestly know. Just something to think about.



Tolkien himself, when asked if the correct form was "dwarfs" or "dwarves," said that actually, it's "dwarrow"...


----------



## Shockley (Oct 13, 2012)

> Beg to differ, but the God Frey, Lord of the Light elves, was depicted as an a tall, strong warrior.



 What on earth does that have to do with anything that I said? Frey was a strong warrior, sure, but that has no bearing on how the alfar were worshiped by Germanic/Norse communities. Furthermore, while Frey was the lord of Alfheim, he most certainly was not Alfr - he was Vanir.



> The hero Volundr not only tall, but you can also see the pointy ears poking through his hair in some illustrations.



 Wayland was a normal man (though he developed a hero cult among the Anglo-Saxons, if memory serves me correctly. Wayland is an extremely common figure on Anglo-Saxon and Nordic art, and I've seen a lot of representations of him - never with pointy ears. Furthermore, knowing most Nordic/Anglo-Saxon art like the back of my hand, I'd be amazed if you could even make out ears on 90% of the stuff. 


 I assume you're using the height to dispute the idea that the dvergar and alfar were related. Do take note that, in your artistic depictions dating from that time, the dwarves are of indeterminate height. They have weird proportions, but the idea that they were short dates to a much later time.

 Edit: I should be a little more blunt with what I am trying to convey: The idea that elves have pointy ears is not present in Germanic myth. The idea that dwarves are short is not present in Germanic myth. The idea that dvergar and alfar are separate creatures is, most likely, not present in Germanic myth. These are all later additions, much like how 'Drow' went on to have a very different meaning than 'Troll,' even though they are the same thing in the Orkish myths.

 Additional Edit: I was looking for this earlier but had trouble finding it. 








 This is a 12th century woodcarving depicting both Regin and Sigurd. Regin is a dvergr, Sigurd is a man. Notice that there is no discernible difference in their size. It could almost be argued that Regin (the figure on our left) is the larger of the two.

 An additional point that could (and should) be made is that the Germanic people had no real problem shifting between describing a certain figure as a dvergr or as a jotun (giant). For example, Fafnir is described as both.


----------



## WyrdMystic (Oct 13, 2012)

Shockley said:


> What on earth does that have to do with anything that I said? Frey was a strong warrior, sure, but that has no bearing on how the alfar were worshiped by Germanic/Norse communities. Furthermore, while Frey was the lord of Alfheim, he most certainly was not Alfr - he was Vanir.



Sorry - you are right, of course. It's the Victorians that gave them the pointy ears.

No I wasn't using height to that effect. I was using it to show that they were the tall figures as depicted by tolkien and that he did not change them. Creatures of physical prowess who have the choice whether or not to affect the course of humanity via divine intervention. He took the original form, gave them the pointy ears that the Victorians bestowed on them and now the concept is entirely his forever - not to detract from the language as that is pure genious. Others used them and there were additions to the myths between the original concepts and Tolkien that influenced Tolkiens elves.

If I was more learned then I'd be able to make a better argument, but my gyst is that Tolkien did not invent elves and anyone using them should not be considered as copying Tolkien.

If someone uses the elves as they were 'exactly' in mythology - they would still be seen as copying Tolkien. That's the media acclaim element that I find wrong.


----------



## Shockley (Oct 14, 2012)

The Victorians didn't really intend to give the elves pointy ears, either. That was a trait they gave to fairies and the idea of those living in 'Fairy.' Tolkien's contribution was connecting the concept of fairies/Fairy with Elves. That's why you have a rather inconsistent use of that term and the concept in the Hobbit. 

 There's even debate as to whether or not the elves in Tolkien have pointy ears - he certainly never suggests that within the published work.

 I wouldn't say the Norse/Anglo-Saxon/Germanic saw the alfar as a particularly real physical threat. There aren't a lot of alfar/dverger depicted directly in the body of myth, but those that are seem to be fairly pathetic/weak. The only major exception to that idea would probably be Fafnir, and he only becomes a real threat to anyone after he becomes a dragon.

 He didn't invent them, not by any stretch of the imagination, but he certainly changed what it meant. Elf/Alf/Aelf was a fairly broad term until recent times, so it could cover a wide range of things. Someone mentioned Dunsansy's 'The King of Elfland's Daughter,' which is a wonderful example of that - the distinction between what Dunsany called an Elf and what we modern fantasists would call a wizard was rather blurry. Some of the early Arthurian myths refer to the Green Knight as being an elf (This is something carried over by the idea that Gawain uses a Pentagram for protection - that is its traditional folkloric role). In the Elf Knight, one of the primordial folk tales, the term 'elf' might very well be used to refer to the character as just being particularly eccentric.

 If you use elves exactly as they are in the old myths, you're basically using nature spirits. 

 If you have a race of people, attuned to nature, with pointy ears, etc. you're pulling from Tolkien.


----------



## WyrdMystic (Oct 14, 2012)

Thanks for all the great stuff everyone. Ive learned a lot here. Im lead to believe that Tolkien referred to hobbit ears not being as pointy as an elf in a note to an illustrator.


----------



## Alex Beecroft (Oct 15, 2012)

1. Ignorance.
2. Because Tolkien's elves are different in subtle but very important ways from folklore elves. Folklore elves are fair game, but when you start talking about how elves are always good, or how they can die of grief or use telepathy or come in three different clans with some complex racism at play between them, or that when they're killed they go to the Halls of Mandos and then come back again... all of these things are Tolkien's own ideas, and it would be plagiarism to copy them.
3. It isn't.


----------



## Ireth (Oct 15, 2012)

Alex Beecroft said:


> elves are always good,



Not exactly. Even Tolkien's elves were capable of doing some pretty horrible things -- just look at Feanor, and the Doom of Mandos that fell on him and his family because of the Oath they took. They weren't irredeemable, since a few of them sincerely repented of some of the things they did (even though it didn't stop them from doing more evil things), but they definitely made the wrong choices, and 7/8 of those who took the Oath (Feanor and six of his seven sons) paid for it with their lives. The eighth wasn't killed, but he lost his entire family, and suffered from that and the burns the Silmarils gave him for the rest of his life. It's never stated when or if he died, but it's a fair guess that he probably wasted away from sheer grief. And besides that, in later ages there was the elf/dwarf racism in people like Celeborn and Thranduil, and even the wise and mighty Galadriel was subject to temptation from the Ring -- a lingering shred of her lust for power that drove her to follow Feanor and his family into exile in Middle-earth. That she passed the test and did not take the Ring is a testament to her character development since then, growing from a power-hungry and impulsive youth to the paragon of wisdom and beauty the Fellowship knew.


----------



## Shockley (Oct 15, 2012)

> And besides that, in later ages there was the elf/dwarf racism in people like Celeborn and Thranduil, and even the wise and mighty Galadriel was subject to temptation from the Ring



 While I'm not huge on reading sub-texts in Tolkien's work, this one always interested me. We have to accept, first and foremost, that the Silmarillion is essentially Elven propaganda. Couple that knowledge with what you hear about the elf/dwarf split in that book and in the Hobbit, it's very possible that the Elves are at fault for the split.


----------



## Mindfire (Oct 15, 2012)

Shockley said:


> While I'm not huge on reading sub-texts in Tolkien's work, this one always interested me. We have to accept, first and foremost, that the Silmarillion is essentially Elven propaganda. Couple that knowledge with what you hear about the elf/dwarf split in that book and in the Hobbit, it's very possible that the Elves are at fault for the split.



Elven propaganda? With the scathing treatment that Feanor and the other kinslayers get, I am hesitant to call it that.


----------



## Ireth (Oct 15, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Elven propaganda? With the scathing treatment that Feanor and the other kinslayers get, I am hesitant to call it that.



Exactly. The atrocities that the Feanorians committed are in no way excused or glossed over. The elves may not like that stain on their past, but they don't try to cover it up.


----------



## Shockley (Oct 15, 2012)

Propaganda in the sense that it's the story of the elves by the elves (much as 'Lord of the Rings' is the War of the Ring from the view of the Hobbits). It has an elf bias in it, which is obvious when you read the work with that in mind - and I think that confirms how genius a writer Tolkien really was.


----------



## Alex Beecroft (Oct 16, 2012)

I quite agree. If you dig into Tolkien's invented history, he subverts his own statement that elves are always good. But that doesn't tend to be what the majority of people take away from LotR or The Hobbit. The Hobbit in particular comes right out and says baldly "but they were elves and that means Good People."

Heh, I would go so far as to say that the Silmarillion was Noldor propaganda, in the sense of these Westerners coming to Middle earth and deciding that all the other elves they found there were 'dark elves'. But I carry on thinking that, if you're not a Silmarillion reader, or the kind of fan who has also chased up the however many volumes of HoME, the overwhelming impression from LotR and The Hobbit is that elves are always good. (They may be hot tempered, and possibly dangerous, but dangerous =/= morally bad.)


----------



## Ireth (Oct 16, 2012)

Alex Beecroft said:


> The Hobbit in particular comes right out and says baldly "but they were elves and that means Good People."
> 
> Heh, I would go so far as to say that the Silmarillion was Noldor propaganda, in the sense of these Westerners coming to Middle earth and deciding that all the other elves they found there were 'dark elves'. But I carry on thinking that, if you're not a Silmarillion reader, or the kind of fan who has also chased up the however many volumes of HoME, the overwhelming impression from LotR and The Hobbit is that elves are always good. (They may be hot tempered, and possibly dangerous, but dangerous =/= morally bad.)



Well, one must also remember that The Hobbit was written when Tolkien was barely starting to create the world of Middle-earth, and so the elves didn't yet have their incredibly complex and morally-varied history as detailed in The Silmarillion. The Silmarillion was the result of years of planning, replanning, editing, revising, and it likely wasn't even finished with when his son compiled and published it.


----------



## Shockley (Oct 17, 2012)

He had been working on Middle Earth for something like fifteen years when the Hobbit came out. While the Silmarillion certainly wasn't 'complete' at his death, it had gone through so many variations and revisions that there were several works you could almost call 'complete.' I'd say the Quenta Version, which he worked on at the same time as Lord of the Rings, is more or less complete and fully developed. The stuff he was working on at the time of his death was more about the theological underpinnings of the work than additional aspects of the narrative.


----------

