Tolkien's Characters

[Elvanui]

It seems to me that the only characters Tolkien really developed in the trilogy were Aragorn, Frodo, Sam, Eowyn, Denethor, Boromir, and maybe a few others. Many of them seemed kind of extraneous and without depth, ie Arwen. Is Tolkien simply inviting his readers to develop their own interpretations of the characters? (In which case, it is rather hard for people to complain so much when PJ amplifies Arwen's character a little so people care about her plight)

[davem]

Which characters, specifically, don't you find developed? The characters are developed to the extent that they are needed to be for the story.

There's a great deal of back story in Tolkien's other works. At the same time you have to remember Tolkien was not writing a novel, but an epic romance.

I don't think the arguement against what PJ did with Arwen was about his giving more emphasis to her, but about the way he CHANGED her character, & how that impacted on the rest of the story. There are two ways to view LotR, as a 'stand alone' work, and as the culmination of the whole Legendarium. There are things in LotR which are there because Tolkien was drawing together threads of story which stretched back over the millenia of Middle Earth history, & are not necessary to LotR as a stand alone work. Many of the objections to what PJ did are from those who see LotR as the culmination of the Legendarium, & therefore feel that it should fit in with the earlier history as closely as possible. So, Arwen defying the Ringwraiths is a problem, because she doesn't have the inner power of Glorfindel. Glorfindel could do it, Arwen couldn't. Things like that grate on some fans.

[Amanfalath]

Suilad my friends,
Tolkien is the highest man in his wisdom known for me for think-what names,languages he created in heis mind?
Every character lives his own life...

[Legolas]

It seems to me that the only characters Tolkien really developed in the trilogy were Aragorn, Frodo, Sam, Eowyn, Denethor, Boromir, and maybe a few others. Many of them seemed kind of extraneous and without depth, ie Arwen.

Merry, Pippin, Gimli, Galadriel, Gandalf, Faramir, Theoden, Saruman, Grima, Legolas, Treebeard, Tom Bombadil...Arwen is the only character that could've used a little bit of characterization. Presumably Tolkien intentionally left that out for the same reason he placed the story of Aragorn and Arwen in the Appendix. A short description or something would've been nice, I agree. I find this to be the only case.

[ June 25, 2003: Message edited by: Legolas ]

[Lily]

Well I thought Pippin Merry and like all the charaters were developed in the trilogy. They all did their part and developed from it. That's what I think at least. smilies/smile.gif

[Lyra Greenleaf]

I'm not convinced Legolas or Gimli were that developed really but:
Aragorn, Frodo, Sam, Eowyn, Denethor, Boromir
Faramir? Merry? Pippin? Treebeard? Gandalf- taking into account he was deliberately mysterious? Saruman? Grima? Personally I think we learn more about some of them thatn about Denethor, anyway.

However a problem is that very few books have that many characters to develop and it's hard to get you to emphasise with so many. There are obviously going to be some who are more developed- not to be rude but Arwen is hardly central to a narration of LOTR. Her and Aragorn are only a subplot/backstory.

[Olorin]

I think that each character is pretty well developed, but when there are so many characters in a novel or whatever you want to call LotR, it's impossible to develop them all thoroughly to the point in which they would have been developed with fewer main characters.

[eldomeldo]

I think Tolkien developed the characters that he really needed to, with so many characters in the books to develop all of them would have made a great many more books.

[Lord of Angmar]

In a normal work, the main character is developed, his friends and accomplices are developed to their own extents and his chief opponent or enemy is developed. In the case of the Lord of the Rings, Tolkien is able to develop dozens of characters without ever actually seeming to try. Every character is different at the end as he was from the beginning. The characters who he does leave undeveloped are never shallow and it is obvious that there is a history behind them that precedes their part in the book.

A good example of this is Gildor Inglorion, whom Frodo meets during his flight to Rivendell. Tolkien is able to craft him and his band of Elves in such a way that we can almost feel their history; their glory as Elves who have seen the light of Aman, their sadness at the troubles of Middle-Earth, and their fear about the coming war with the Dark Powers. This seemingly insignificant character, and others whom we meet in Tolkien's works (another of my favorite seemingly inconsequential characters is Brandir of the tale of Turin Turambar). It is this sign of a true storyteller that Tolkien knows how to space out his character development and he develops characters with such grace and ease that sometimes it is hard to fully see their transformation.

Sam Gamgee, I think, is the character who is changed the most throught LotR, yet at the end we still see him as Sam the Gardner, a simple, loyal hobbit of the Shire. It is characters like the aforementioned that I believe make Tolkien such a brilliant storyteller.

[FingolfintheBold]

I want to refute something that was said earlier. I have to do it this way because I am ignorant conserning the use of those quote bar things. I think that Arwen might well have had at least some power to resist the wraiths. After all, she was a desendant of Luthien Tinuviel, who had power in song over Morgoth himnself. Power is passed down in generations in Middle Earth, esspecially with the elves. One elf is extremely powerful, that elf's desendants are frequently very powerful. Just a thought!

[Elentári]

thats an interesting idea...i see wot u mean

well i think that all the characters were developed as much or as little as necessary (i wrote an essay including this...). it wasnt a book about the characters, but about the war. the characters were introduced as part of the story, that's all. in depth characterisation was not necessary for those many, many characters who were not some major role in the events.
it was the events that were important, not so much the individual characters. they were important for their contribution. does that make sense? i'm so bad at expressing myself!

[Cúdae]

The characters were each developed in thier own way and to the extent needed. Frodo, being the main focus, was developed far more right from the start. As was Aragorn, also being a key player. When the Fellowship splits, Boromir's off the board (poor guy) so his character, of which I think the height was met in Lothlorien, needs no further development. After the Fellowship splits, you find deeper insights into the characters of Legolas, Gimli, Merry, Pippin, and Sam, to name a few. Arwen met the height of her characterization in the Appendices, rather than in the main writing. Each character was developed to a point that allowed them to play their part believably in the story. To muse a little here, I think that the bigger the part, the deeper the characterization.

I was going to say something else, but I lost the thought. Argh, I hate it when this happens!

Edit: Am I the only one who can't see their typos until a day later?

[ July 07, 2003: Message edited by: Cúdae ]

[Neferchoirwen]

the characters were introduced as part of the story, that's all

You lost me there...aren't the characters part of the story, and that without the characters, a story would never exist?

But I agree with you that the events are what seem to be the most important thing in the books, though the sole purpose is to "house" the languages that Tolkien has created.

And returning to the topic of characters...Middle Earth is also a character in itself. And the people that well, people it are also what gives it life, making it very credible and very believable. Its history gives it a specific feel that is exclusive to itself.

[Cúdae]

Neferchoirwen, I had never considered Middle-Earth itself to be a character before. And I am also not sure that I agree with you, for a reason you yourself stated when you wrote "...people in it are also what gives it life..." I tend to view Middle-Earth's life, so to speak, as not the life of the place itself, but as the lives of the characters who lived on it and gave it history. Without the character (if you want to call him a character) of Eru, Middle-Earth would not have come into existence. Without the character of Earendil, it wouldn't have surived and without the character of Frodo it wouldn't have been given a chance to endure. Those are just a few characters that spring to mind that I feel give Middle-Earth a "life." I feel that every character, from the major Feanor & Sons to the minor, barely remembered characters (who I can't remember the names, thereby proving this point smilies/smile.gif ) each add to the "life" of Middle-Earth.

[Guinevere]

This is an interesting topic!

The most closely drawn character in LotR is certainly Sam! (Tolkien himself stated that in letter #93)
Through Sam's "inner dialogues" he reveals his thoughts and feelings to the reader much more than any of the other characters. This is why one can so well feel and identity with him.

Since the whole LotR is written "as seen with the eyes of the hobbits" it is only the hobbits' thoughts and feelings the reader gets to know directly.
The other characters are seen , as it were, from "outside". You get to know them only by what they say and do. That can reveal a lot - but you don't get to know them as closely as the hobbits.
Even Frodo is towards the end largely seen through Sam's eyes - what really goes on in his mind we can only guess.

The case of Eowyn is also interesting - what we know about her, is mostly what Aragorn, Gandalf and Faramir tell about her!
Faramir's character is revealed through the long conversations with Frodo and Sam (all left out by PJ smilies/mad.gif )

The least developed character of the Fellowship is - in my opinion - Legolas. He reveals hardly anything about himself. We have no idea about his life before the quest, his thoughts or feelings. Yet he is the favourite of so many fans! But I think that it is just the fact that so little is defined about this beautiful mysterious elf, makes him so suitable for all sorts of projections... (cf innumerable Legolas- Fanfictions smilies/biggrin.gif )

It's also notable that many of the characters in LotR are changing and developing in the course of the quest, especially the hobbits. Merry and Pippin "grow up" and Frodo becomes ennobled.

[ July 08, 2003: Message edited by: Guinevere ]

[Samwise Gamgee]

Guenivere - you sure got it right about sam!

Personally, I think that the reason many characters are flat is because of the type of story. As was mentioned earlier, the hobbits let us into the world of Middle Earth. We relate to them. Now reading something like The Odyssey, an epic, no character is very human. Each is either good or bad (probably the most Human, I think is Penelope - but that is an entire different subject) Tolkien wrote us an epic with epic characters like Aragorn and Gandalf. Characters without much "humanity." They are great and you love them, but you can't feel with them as you can with those that can relate.

It is an epic with a twist, because in Tolkien's epic we are given a set of "non-epic" characters that are like us, so we can have a deeper understanding of the heroism in the story.

Of course Sam is the prime example - but I could talk about that for forever!

[Cúdae]

This is interesting that some people find Sam to be the most developed character in the books. Now that I think about it though, you might just be right (and if Tolkien said it himself, then you rpobably are)! I think Aragorn would come in as a close second. His character is developed in a different manner than Sam's. It is less straight forward which is only befitting (sp?) a less straight forward character.

Guinevere- Interesting comment on identifying with Sam, followed by an equally interesting comment on the lack of character development of Legolas. Contrary to most feelings of others, I've never identified with Sam. Not in the least. But I have identified with the less characterized Legolas. I'll have to think more about this. smilies/smile.gif

[LovelyLalaith]

Alright, Im going way back to the Glorfindel and Arwen thing. (Hope nobody minds) I would say that Arwen wouldn't be able to stand up to the Ringwraiths the Glorfindel did. Yes, she may be a decendent from Luthien, but her father is Half-ELven. Therefore I'd say the power has waned through the generations. Glorfindel though had a power I don't think Arwen was meant to posess. I also say PJ unfolded Arwen's character in a completely diferent direction than what Tolkien had in mind. But who knows. Quesstion: Does it ever say that Arwen was a sheild-maiden? I can't remember ever reading that, even in the backround books.

[FingolfintheBold]

I dont think Arwen was a sheildmaiden or anything, and I'm not saying she was as powerful as Luthien, but one of the most powerful of the Noldor was her grandmother! Surely a good bit of that power would appear in Arwen. She inherited Luthien's likeness, and probably her ability to use that beauty and her own elven power to enchant people.

Now maybe she couldnt DEFEAt all the ringwraiths at once under their fell captain, but i think she could stall them or distract them or entrance them or something.

Of course with all the ringwraiths together even distracting them would be a heavy task, but maybe if it were just one of them it would be easier... Just a thought.

[LovelyLalaith]

Oh yes, I had forgotton about Arwen's Grandmother. That would help her power. I agree with you FingolfintheBold about the situation of one Ringwraith verses all. I suppose Arwen would be able to help call the water though.

I dont like the way PJ unfolded Arwen to be a shield-maiden, because Eowyn is. That was kind of her special thing. Oh well, the two main females in LOTR are s-m's I guess. If thats what PJ wants...