• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Tolkien's Elves

WyrdMystic

Inkling
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

Inkling
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

Inkling
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

Inkling
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

Inkling
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

Archmage
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

Inkling
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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.
 
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

Staff
Moderator
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Archmage
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

Dreamer
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.”
Ästa stared at the shadows on the forest floor, but could see nothing.
A voice, tinged with mild humor corrected her. “No, Ästa,” it said. “Do not look at the shadows; look into them, and look closer to the trees.”
Curious now, despite her growing fear, Ästa 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, Ästa 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 Ästa 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, Ästa gasped when its color shifted to black again.
“We are the shadow elves,” the first voice said in Ästa’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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Archmage
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

Dreamer
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

Istar
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)?

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.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
That'd be Peter Jackson's doing. :D

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

Archmage
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.
 
Top