Psychological depth in Tolkien's characters

[The Saucepan Man]

This topic has been touched on in a number of threads, most recently in "Dumbing Down the Books", but I do not believe that it has a thread of its own.

The Independent, a UK newspaper, has a weekly spot where readers are invited to pose questions for various "celebs". This week was Philip Pullman's turn (and I have to admit to not having read any of his books, although I have one on my "to read" pile).

He was asked:

Harry Potter or the Lord of the Rings?

He replied:

Um. This is one of those Archbishop of Canterbury 12-second silences. I can't really answer the question. I read The Lord of the Rings when I was a teenager and I didn't really like it. I have tried to read it since, but it doesn't really say anything to me because the characters have no psychological depth. The only interesting character is Gollum. And I've only read one Harry Potter book, the second one, and it wouldn't be fair to comment on that basis, although I thought it was funny and inventive. Neither are my particular favourites.

Putting aside the curiosity of one of modern fantasy's current standard-bearers remarking unfavourably on one of the genre's founding fathers, I am most interested in people's views on his comment that Tolkien's characters lack "psychological depth". Is Pullman right on this? Or is there some depth to Tolkien's characters? If so, which ones and how is it brought out?

I won't give my own views for now, save to say that I think he is on safe ground as far as Legolas and Gimli are concerned. But, Gollum aside, here are a few possible candidates for inner conflict and/or psychological development in LotR:

Frodo: Just an unlikely hero, or is there some depth in his struggle to resist the Ring and his treatment of Gollum? And what about his ultimate inability to stay in Middle-earth in consequence of the travails that he has undergone?

Aragorn: Paper-thin would-be King and all round good guy, or does the Book (rather than the films) bring out any sense of his uncertainty over his destiny? Is there some depth brought out in his realtionship with Eowyn?

Samwise: Simple Gardener and loyal servant/friend, or do the Choices of Master Samwise bring out some depth in the struggle that he undergoes?

Meriadoc: Hobbit sidekick 1, or a Hobbit whose interest in the wider world leads to his development as a heroic character?

Pippin: Hobbit sidekick 2 and repository of light relief (in the Books, that is), or young innocent whose inquiring mind leads to an incredible transformation?

Boromir: Ring-seizing stooge, or a Man tortured by the conflict between his oath to serve the Fellowship and his desire to serve the interests of his people?

Denethor: Carboard cut-out mean tyrant and overbearing father, or a Man driven to desperation and dark deeds by despair (the chapter on the Palantiri in Unfinished Tales has some good material in this regard)?

Faramir: Too noble and perfect to be believable, or does he undergo a real conflict between his duty and his desire to prove himself to his father and his instinctive feel for what is the right thing to do?

Theoden: Simply under Wormtongue's spell or is there an inner struggle going on before Gandalf releases him from the effect of Wormtongue's words? And after that, is there some sense that he is struggling to decide what is the right thing to do by his realm and by his historical allies in Gondor?

Just a few characters. Feel free to bring up more, from LotR or Tolkien's other works. Does Tolkien imbue his principal characters with real psycholgical depth, or do they merely serve to tell the greater story? Is the fact that his stories are told from the perspective of just a few characters (Frodo and, to a lesser extent, Sam in LotR, Bilbo in the Hobbit, and no one in particular in the Silmarillion) a hinderance in this regard? If so, how does Tolkien get round this device to bring out the inner struggles of his characters (if indeed he does)?

[The Ninth Valar]

Tolkien repeatedly states his books are about applicability, i.e. you can apply the lesson of the book to many things. Meaning, there is no overriding metaphor, nor definite allegory to cling to.

Look at the characters in this regard: they are lacking in some *stated* psychological detail, but in the eye of the reader, much of the depth you mentioned (the second descriptions for each character) can be implied. In turn, then, the reader is left some freedom with the story. When you make the characters more iconic, as Tolkien has, you let the reader relate more to the story and the characters. Applicability - the reader can lay the story over whatever events they wish - if they wish to apply it to something - and not be bothered with hugely detailed characterizations like you may find in a New York literary piece. Those stories can be allegory, but cannot be easily applied to real life, as Tolkien's work can. LotR gives the reader some freedom in deciding why people do what they do - even Saruman can be a tragic hero if you want.

That's my opinion.

[Arwen1858]

ok, it's really late(almost 2 in the morning... I was up watching TTT), so I'm only going to put up a short post, and continue the rest tomorrow. I think there is depth to a lot of different characters. Or at least, there can be, depending on the reader and how he/she percieves it. To the reader who just quickly reads over it, not putting a lot of thought or effort into it, doesn't typically read much, or isn't old enough to understand fully, there may not seem to be much depth to the characters. But those of us who are older, or read a lot more, so can have a better grasp of it, I think there is great amount of depth to some characters. Not all of them are as developed as others, but that's the case in all books. Saucepan, I think all the depth you mentioned in the latter part of your descriptions is there, just some readers may not pick up on it. For instance, Pippin is a young, curious hobbit who hasn't yet come of age. He is innocent and naive, and grows up a great deal through the books. I don't think he's foolish at first, as some people have stated before, but he is young, and has a lot to learn. And he certainly learns a great deal throughout his journey. By the time of the Scouring of the Shire, he has grown up quite a bit, and not just in height. He's wiser, and has been through many things. I think there's quite a bit to his character. I'll try to post more of what I think of the different characters tomorrow. My poor, tired brain can't handle any more right now.
Arwen

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

It is refreshing how Tolkien chose not to overtly draw attention to the psychological conflict his characters faced. By just touching on the circumstances of these people’s lives it gave a greater depth to the work, similar to how he dealt with the historical aspect of ME. And yes, it does seem to let the reader fill in the rest in a way they can understand.

So I would say there is implied psychological depth to quite a few, if you are looking for it. I would not say that it is a hindrance to have the stories told from a character’s viewpoint, rather it is more like real life; you have to read between the lines. Tolkien seems to get these internal struggles across by clues in conversations, characters actions and the reader’s common sense. By that I mean, the reader realizing how anyone is apt to feel under those conditions.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Saucepan Man,

At the risk of raising issues that go far astray from the question you posted, I am going to plunge ahead....

The minute that I saw the interview was by Philip Pullman, a red flag went up. I think it is impossible to assess the comments put forward about Tolkien's characters without considering who the author is and where he's coming from.

Let me begin by saying that, if you have not read His Dark Materials trilogy (and unlike the Rings it is a trilogy), you are in for a treat. I consider it one of the finest fantasy series written since Tolkien, at least if you are judging by things like creativity, believability, and writing style.

On the face of it, Pullman and Tolkien have quite a bit in common. Both lived and taught at Oxford. Pullman's degree is also in English. I understand that New Line Cinema is negotiating to get the rights to His Dark Materials to turn it into a movie! Like Tolkien, Pullman writes a story of good versus evil and hearkens back to older sources, with a religious or mythological slant. He also confirms that the biblical creation story in the Garden of Eden and "Paradise Lost" were the major influences on the series. Like Tolkien, Pullman's story is shot through with religious and philosophical meaning.

At that point, however, the similarity ends. What Pullman does is stand Tolkien's Legendarium on its head. The Authority or God-figure is a distant, dislikeable figure who is pulling a sham on all of humankind. The heroes are those who rebel against him. The church itself plays an important role as an authoritarian institution; those who are moral are those who oppose it. Pullman grew up as the son of an Anglican clergyman and obviously developed some very strong likes and dislikes!

In my fantasies, I have dreamed of getting Pullman and JRRT together in one room, locking the door, walking away and coming back in a few hours!

My main point is this: I don't think you can evaluate Pullman's comments without understanding where he is coming from philosophically and religiously. My gut feeling is that Pullman would be incapable of giving an honest, balanced assessment of Tolkien's characters. I think those characters have too much of Tolkien himself in them--his world view and beliefs--for Pullman to empathize with their plight. And the same thing would probably have been true of Tolkien. If he had read His Dark Materials, he would probably have disliked it.

To be truthful, how much can any of us divorce ourselves from our basic values and ways of looking at things? And how much does that influence our assessment of a piece of literature? When I read His Dark Materials, I couldn't put it down. I knew it was very well written and creative. Yet at the same time I was reading it, I found myself disliking the underlying philosophical and religious assumptions. My own stance, while far from identical with that of Tolkien, is closer to his views than those of Pullman. (Now, if you had asked me that in the late 60s, I might have said something else!) And yes, as a historian, I have studied instance after instance of religious institutions acting in cruel and unconscionable ways, so I know Pullman has a point. But, even with this said, my basic sympathies lie with Tolkien.

It is quite clear to me why Pullman would be uncomfortable and critical of Tolkien. They come from totally different vantage points, and I don't feel that either would be able to appreciate or understand the other.

BTW, I once put up a thread comparing these two authors, but had few takers. Still wondering if anyone out there has any views and opinions on Pullman in relation to Tolkien.......

[Imladris]

I agree with you, Hilde. If you read a book like LotR quickly and easily, you won't get the character developement of the characters (which has been said before so I apologize).

But here is another character to add to the list:

Eowyn A young woman who pines only for adventure and has a crush on Aragorn, but when he leaves turns fickily around and marries Faramir? Or does she turn from a bitter, cold woman into a contented lover? That's a big change.

[Aiwendil]

Hilde Bracegirdle wrote:
So I would say there is implied psychological depth to quite a few, if you are looking for it. I would not say that it is a hindrance to have the stories told from a character’s viewpoint, rather it is more like real life; you have to read between the lines. Tolkien seems to get these internal struggles across by clues in conversations, characters actions and the reader’s common sense. By that I mean, the reader realizing how anyone is apt to feel under those conditions.

I think this is exactly right.

In the "Dumbing Down the Books" thread, I argued that there are two major schools of characterization. In the "modern" school, characterization is internal. This method attempts to give the audience direct access to a character's inner thoughts, conflicts, and so forth. It is an implied supposition of this school that it is the inner life of the characters that is important. In, for example, Crime and Punishment, this technique is central to the story.

In the "ancient" school, characterization is external. Character is revealed through actions and speech rather than through direct access to the character's thoughts. This has certain advantages and certain disadvantages in comparison to the modern school.

Of course, these two techniques are not mutually exclusive. Though Tolkien relies primarily on the latter, he not unaware of the former, more modern, technique. Particularly in the character of Gollum, he makes some use of this internal technique. This is probably why Gollum stands out from the rest as an especially vivid character, appealing even to those with a bias against the external method.

It is the internal method that is typically associated with "psychological depth", for here we actually enter into a character's thoughts and plumb the depths of his or her psyche. But the external technique allows a kind of implied psychological depth to which modern critics have a tendency to be blind. It is this implied depth that chiefly characterizes, for example, Denethor, Frodo, or Boromir. We are not told Denethor's thoughts directly, but we learn enough about him to understand his despair, his inner conflict, and his madness. This kind of characterization is a lot more subtle than Tolkien is generally given credit for. It calls on the reader to piece together (perhaps subconsciously) various things that are said about Denethor, things said by him, actions he performs, and so on. It has the (I think major) advantage that this is the way we actually come to know people in real life.

But there is another layer of subtlety: sometimes pieces of this implied characterization are achieved through association with other characters and events in Tolkien's mythology. This is more true of The Silmarillion than of The Lord of the Rings. For example, some of Feanor's implied depth comes from the mythological persona of Aule, and from associations already built into the mythology around Aule.

It must be admitted that there are some characters that are not given such great depth, implied or direct - Legolas and Gimli, for example. But here we come to another conflict between ancient and modern literature. In addition to disagreeing on what techniques to use for characterization, they disagree on the importance of characterization as part of the story. There is a modern tendency to consider characterization the most important aspect of literature. But this was not always so. Beowulf is not about the character of the protagonist, but about his deeds (and not only in so far as they imply psychological depth). Again, neither way is right, and great works of literature have been achieved in both schools. But the force with which some critics criticize Tolkien's characterization seems to arise in large part from the supposition that character is the most important aspect of any story, and that this is a universal truth.

[Legolas]

In my fantasies, I have dreamed of getting Pullman and JRRT together in one room, locking the door, walking away and coming back in a few hours!

From the sound of it, you might need to strap each to a desk with a pen and paper also. smilies/wink.gif

Thread well-done, Saucepan Man. I'll post a little later on.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Child: In my fantasies, I have dreamed of getting Pullman and JRRT together in one room, locking the door, walking away and coming back in a few hours!


Legolas's response: From the sound of it, you might need to strap each to a desk with a pen and paper also.

Yes, that would probably be the safest thing! Too bad it just isn't possible. An exchange of ideas could produce some interesting sparks.

Aiwendel's lucid post and my own actually seem to deal with two sides of the same coin.

Pullman as a representative of the "modern" school, both with his emphasis on internal characterization and his questioning stance on religious belief and institutions....

Tolkien as the defender of "tradition"---standing much closer to the epic works that spell out the story by external deeds and acts, along with his sympathies for more traditional religious views.

Interestingly, in "real" life, we stand somewhere between the two in regard to characterization. We have access to our own thoughts and feelings, but can only interpret others through the prism of their speech and acts.

Perhaps, that is one reason JRRT's characters seem "real" to me. As in real life, I can only guess at what's going on inside somebody unless they choose to confide. But Tolkien does such a fine job depicting the character's words and actions that we feel we can venture a guess at what sentiment or thought actually lies behind them. To say nothing of the fact that we can spend endless hours debating those guesses on this site!

[ November 08, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Durelin]

Perhaps, that is one reason JRRT's characters seem "real" to me. (Child)

Real! That is the wonderful thing! But what if we talked about real 'psychological depth.' What is psychology? I think first we must answer that.

All people of some intelligence are going to have a psychological part, if you will, of their lives or minds. There is some degree of psychology related to everything, as the human mind is really related to everything: thoughts, actions, speech.

Pullman sees this all in an obviously 'scientific,' or, as Child so nicely put it, 'modern' way. And, the modern way is secularism, atheism. So, when Pullman searches for his 'psychological depth,' he will not find it in Tolkien's 'outdated' writing, or any writing by someone who knows of more to psychology - has faith. Many times people feel like they need to delve deep into someone's thoughts, know their memories, know their darkest temptations, in order to understand them or at least, in books, to get the most out of following a character in a story. Or, sometimes - actually, many times - people just want to read about all these complex thoughts just to get into all the 'juiciness' of the drama. The thing is, these people don't think they experience enough 'psychological depth' in their own minds. Part of the reason they believe this is that they don't have something to really believe in, and the other part is that they just don't get it. I think they make the whole idea of psychology and the human mind in general a much larger deal than is truly necessary.

Okay, one last thought: How can someone say that there is no 'psychological depth' in a work (literature or otherwise), when it is written by a human being with a human mind. (Well, most have a human mind.)

At least, that's what I think. smilies/wink.gif

-Durelin

[Mahal]

Well, it has(i think) also to do with the good vs evil. In modern life there is gray in between, so characters can not behave "out of the box" wether(sp?) it be good or evil.

well those are my thoughts(so no one else has to agree smilies/smile.gif )

[Finwe]

Characters are written to take specific roles. Since human beings are not created to take specific roles (usually), characters often seen to be flat, and have no psychological depth. We have to realize that they're characters, not real people.

[Aiwendil]

Child of the 7th Age wrote:
Pullman as a representative of the "modern" school, both with his emphasis on internal characterization and his questioning stance on religious belief and institutions....

Tolkien as the defender of "tradition"---standing much closer to the epic works that spell out the story by external deeds and acts, along with his sympathies for more traditional religious views.


I think you are right - but at the same time, I don't think Pullman's modern outlook alone is enough to account for his inability to find psychological depth in Tolkien's characters. Rather, it is a particular type of modern outlook, indeed a particular type of modern literary outlook; and this need not be tied to a modern outlook in other regards.

For example, I would say I have a rather modern outlook (though not "post-modern") with regard to science, religion, and such things. I would call myself a secular humanist; and I would say that I am tend toward an anti-religious, pro-scientific, supremely analytical view of things. And yet The Lord of the Rings is my favorite book; and yet I in many ways prefer the traditional school of external characterization to the modern. It takes something more than a modern outlook to be blind to the kind of implicit depth Tolkien gives his characters.

Interestingly, in "real" life, we stand somewhere between the two in regard to characterization. We have access to our own thoughts and feelings, but can only interpret others through the prism of their speech and acts.

Very true. One might say, if one were prone to making blanket over-generalizations, that the modern preference for internal characterization is an outgrowth of the Enlightenment's focus on the individual.

[The Saucepan Man]

Yes, I can see that there is a difference between Pullman's "modern" approach of giving the reader direct access to his character's inner feelings and conflicts, and Tolkien's manner of showing us his characters inner feelings and conflicts through their actions and their interactions with other characters.

The question is whether Tolkien is successful in this. To Pullman's mind, he clearly is not (with the exception of Gollum), since Pullman does not consider Tolkien's characters to have psychological depth. And, if Tolkien is not successful in conveying his characters "inner selves", why is it that his works are so popular?

It has been said that the psychological depth in Tolkien's characters is to be implied. And I can accept this to a certain degree. This, to my mind, is certainly true of Denethor. Aiwendil said:

We are not told Denethor's thoughts directly, but we learn enough about him to understand his despair, his inner conflict, and his madness.

And I thoroughly agree with this. For me, Denethor is a prime example of one of Tolkien's characters whose psychological depth is very well-mapped. When I first read LotR, I never had the sense that Denethor was an evil character, although neither is he all good by any stretch of the imagination. Through his actions, and through his relationships with other characters, we get the sense that he is a tragic character. He is flawed, yes. This much is apparent from his differing treatment of his two sons. But he is a tragic character. A man who started out with the most worthy of intentions to do the best for his people, but who, through his use of the Palantir, came round to thinking that there was no hope. A man who lost his beloved son, and whose other son was a source of disappointment to him. But even then, there might have been some hope in his remaining son, until he too languished on the point of near death. Even without realising the sense of guilt that he probably felt over the death of his wife (for this is not really told in LotR), we can understand the state of despair that drove him to the terrible deeds by which he took his own life and almost that of his son. Yes, there is definately psychological depth in Denethor.

Similarly with Boromir, but less obviously so. When I first read LotR (admittedly at a young age), I had no sympathy for him. And yet, in subsequent readings, I came to understand the struggle that he went through and to see him as an incredibly sympathetic character. Here is a man who was under intense pressure to do what was right for his people. And, yes, perhaps to steal a bit of glory for himself. Why should he have listened to the words of the wise? He did initially, but the thought of using the Ring to defend Gondor and perhaps defeat Sauron was ever present. And this was what the Ring worked on, giving rise to an intense internal struggle which he was ultimately unable to suppress.

But these are the "grey" characters, who are neither wholly good nor unacceptably evil. Gollum fals into the same category, and Pullman (rightly) acknowledges him as a character who does have psychological depth.

But is this perhaps a shortcoming in Tolkien's style? The actions of these "grey" characters and their interaction with others tell us volumes about their inner feelings and struggles. But what about the "good" characters? Do we really "get to know" them? Can we really understand their inner conflicts? Or does the fact that they are on the side of "good" render any understanding of their motivations impossible (other than that they are striving against "evil" in the form of Sauron)?

Take Aragorn, for example. The films give him some depth in his doubt over whether he is truly worthy to take up the mantle of Isildur's heir. We get some sense of this in the Book, in his doubt over what to do for the best following Gandalf's fall in Moria, but overall he was pretty much resolute in the path which he had to follow and comfortable in his destiny. Does this really give us any sense of depth in his character? Perhaps if we were given access to his inner thoughts, we would get a sense of this depth. But we are not. We see him as the Hobbits saw him. A man in respect whom they are at first distrustful but who earns their trust, and who then goes on to prove himself as a mighty warrior and a worthy King. This tells us that he is a heroic character but, in psychological terms, it tells us more about the Hobbits than it does about the character of Aragorn.

Aiwendil, again, said:

There is a modern tendency to consider characterization the most important aspect of literature. But this was not always so. Beowulf is not about the character of the protagonist, but about his deeds (and not only in so far as they imply psychological depth).

Aragorn surely falls into this category of those who are characterised more by their deeds than by their inner persona. That is all well and good. But does it really work that we learn more about the "inner selves" of those who are struggling on the edge of good and evil than those who are resolutely on the side of good?

Child said:

Interestingly, in "real" life, we stand somewhere between the two in regard to characterization. We have access to our own thoughts and feelings, but can only interpret others through the prism of their speech and acts.

That is absolutely true. In the absence of direct access to their thoughts, we react to people on the basis of their deeds and their interaction with us. As readers, we are placed in the same position. So, we (largely) react well to those whose deeds seems to us to be noble, and perhaps have a more adverse reaction to those whose deeds are less than ideal (even though we may find it difficult to live up to the ideal ourselves). And yet it is those "less than ideal" characters who are so much more fleshed out by their words and deeds, and it is perhaps them with whom we should be able to identify more closely.

Does this mean that "psychological depth" (ie inner conflic and struggle) is less appealing to us as readers and that we are looking for the ideals in our reading material? Is this perhaps a plus in Tolkien's approach, rather than a flaw? Is this where he succeeds over other writers in that, in his most obviously commendable characters, he is offering us an ideal? Do we react better to these ideal characters than to those who (albeit in a more grandiose fashion) might represent more closely our own inner struggles?

[Aiwendil]

But is this perhaps a shortcoming in Tolkien's style? The actions of these "grey" characters and their interaction with others tell us volumes about their inner feelings and struggles. But what about the "good" characters? Do we really "get to know" them? Can we really understand their inner conflicts? Or does the fact that they are on the side of "good" render any understanding of their motivations impossible (other than that they are striving against "evil" in the form of Sauron)?

I think that your question largely answers itself. Why do we not find as much psychological depth in the purely good characters as in those with inner conflict? Because they are purely good characters that lack inner conflict.

In other words, I don't think it's quite fair to say that we don't get to know the good characters as well as we do the grey. We get to know them just as well - it's just that there's less about them to know. Aragorn is just what we see: a resolute, noble, well-intentioned king. To demand more is not to demand better characterization; it's to demand a different story.

To make a somewhat crude analogy: a biography of Tolkien will most likely be shorter (or have less content, anyway), than a biography of, say, Gandhi. Is this because we know more about Gandhi than we do about Tolkien? No - it's because Gandhi's life was more event-filled than Tolkien's.

One could argue that if inner conflict and ambiguous morality is what gives characters depth, then Tolkien should have written a story with more characters in inner conflict. But this (in typical modernist fashion) mistakes the point of the whole endeavor. For, as I argued before, it is not universally true that all literature ought to be primarily about character.

But, if I may say so without undermining my above argument too much, there are good characters that have something like psychological depth - the hobbits, for example (particularly, I think, Bilbo and Sam). And in the Silmarillion there are great epic heroes with a certain depth (at least I think so): Beren, Hurin, Tuor. (Some will no doubt disagree. But I think this is one of the examples of the overlooked subtlety in Tolkien's characterization. It's not something that's easily picked up on the first, or a cursory, reading. But spend enough time with the Silmarillion material and you will begin to see these heroes more skillfully drawn. I omit Turin from the list because most would claim that he falls into the grey area).

So. I think that in part the apparent lack of depth seen in Aragorn is explained by my first point - we see all that there is to see. But I think that to some extent, in light of my second point, it must be admitted that Aragorn is not the best of Tolkien's characters, not even the best of his purely good characters.

[The Ninth Valar]

Turin and Feanor more than one-dimensional characters, as can Galadriel if you think of her total character arc.

[The Saucepan Man]

I think that your question largely answers itself. Why do we not find as much psychological depth in the purely good characters as in those with inner conflict? Because they are purely good characters that lack inner conflict.

OK, to re-phrase the question, is Aragorn a believable character, lacking as he does any inner conflict? And, if he is not, is the ideal which he presents nevertheless appealing to us as readers? If so, why, if he is not a believable character?

Beren, Hurin, Tuor.

I do not feel that I "know" these characters at all, other than as heroic characters.

But spend enough time with the Silmarillion material and you will begin to see these heroes more skillfully drawn.

Indulge me.

[Arwen1858]

ok, once again I stayed up late watching LotR, so this post will not contain as much as I wish I could put. Anyways, another character I think has psychological depth is Eowyn. She grew up as a woman in a man's world, and I'm sure that must have been very hard. She was cold, and I'm sure didn't show much feeling. When Aragorn came along, she saw him, the ice started melting a bit, and she started caring for him. She really wasn't in love with him, though. I think it was more like how fangirls say they're in love with the actors. They aren't really, they just love their image. She loved Aragorn's image. Then he didn't return the love, she felt he pitied her, and she started freezing up again. Then there's her going off to fight, helping slay the WK, and having to be healed. She ends up falling in love with Faramir, and the ice in her heart finally melts. I think there is a lot of depth to her if you read between the lines, and look at her actions, and determine how she must have felt. She isn't one diminsional at all, and has a lot of depth. I really think the amount of depth one gets from the books all depends on how much of it the reader is able to percieve. How much they pay attention to the book, observe the actions of the characters and how they fit in with their surroundings, and how much the reader enjoys the book. I know from experience that if someone is reading a book that they don't like very well, the person will most likely just skim over it enough to get a basic idea of what's going on. He will not get deeply involved with the story, hang on every line, and drink it all in. He would be bound to miss quite a bit. Well, that's all my tired brain can conjure up right now.
Arwen

[Olorin_TLA]

Maybe critics can't perieve depth unless it's forced into their mouths?

[littlemanpoet]

Interesting topic, Saucepan Man! smilies/smile.gif

Orson Scott Card, in his book, Characters & Viewpoint, wrote that there are four basic factors that are present in every story, with varying degrees of emphasis. It is the balance among these factors that determines what sort of characterization a story must have, should have, or can have [author's italics].

The four factors are milieu, idea, character, and event.

The milieu is the world surrounding the characters - the landscape, the interior spaces, the surrounding cultures the characters emerge from and react to; everything from weather to traffic laws.

The idea is the information that the reader is meant to discover or learn during the process of the story.

Character is the nature of one or more of the people in the story - what they do and why they do it. It usually leads to or arises from a conclusion about human nature in general.

The events of the story are everything that happens and why.

These factors usually overlap. ...... Each factor is present in all stories, to one degree or another. Every factor has an implicit structure; if that factor dominates a story, its structure determines the overall shape of the story.

Card goes on to describe how LotR is a milieu story, and shows how Tolkien's characterization is appropriate to a milieu story. Card didn't discuss Pullman's story, but I have read it, and would venture to say that Pullman's story, for all its milieu, is a characterization story. Its structure is centered around the two major protagonists. They are what drives the story's structure. Since it's a characterization story, psychological depth is going to be a primary element. The characters are going to be deep, deep, deep, because that's what's appropriate to a characterization story.

Yes, there's psychological depth to Tolkien's main characters, but as one of you said, it's implied.

Happy Discussing! smilies/smile.gif

[Child of the 7th Age]

Saucepan Man,

I'm going to digress from your question for one minute regarding Aragorn to pick up on something Aiwendil said regarding hobbits. Eventually, I hope my point will bring us back to Aragorn. I am phrasing my answer strictly in terms of LotR, rather than considering Silm, at least at this time.

But, if I may say so without undermining my above argument too much, there are good characters that have something like psychological depth - the hobbits, for example (particularly, I think, Bilbo and Sam).

First, Bilbo.... His growth and maturation is the central theme not of the LotR but of The Hobbit. And there is little question that it is the central theme of the entire tale. (Whole books have been written on this point.) Given the possibilities of a children's story, I don't see how anyone could argue that we don't get inside Bilbo's head. We certainly do! At the end of The Book, we know a great deal about Bilbo--how he has grown and changed, his little quirks, likes and dislikes, his sense of humor, how he conquored fear in the tunnel to creep forward and get a look at Smaug, etc., etc.

Secondly, I would add Frodo to the list of hobbits about whom we know something in depth. It is true that we are never told what particular dream or lure is attracting Frodo to the Ring, but we definitely know that there is conflict going on and there is a desire that he is fighting to resist. Similarly, we are aware that, at the same time he is being tempted, his "good" side is also maturing as seen by the Elven light that gleems in his eye, Gandalf's assessment of him at Rivendell as possibly being transformed into the Phial of Galadriel, and the later scenes where pity comes into play with Gollum.

From hints dropped quite early in the book, in Tom Bombadil's house and Rivendell, we are aware that Frodo is beginning to yearn for the Sea and to conceive of a shining place that lies beyond the Shire itself, even at the same time when all Frodo's actions (as well as those of Sam) are obviously motivated by a desire to save the Shire and its way of life.

And, of course, we have Frodo's continuing struggle at the end of the book suggesting that he still desires the Ring as well as the fact that he is in need of healing for past injuries.

The book also shows Sam, Merry, and Pippin maturing. Merry and Pippin, who are the "youngest" at the beginning of the tale, evidence physical growth that is reflective of what is going on inside: a new seriousness and commitment to take action, the ability to make a vow and carry it through. Sam's own path involves several key themes that reflect his maturation: rejecting the temptation of the "super-gardener" presented to him by the Ring, his steadfastness towards Frodo and his ability to reach out and call upon the steadying image of the Shire even in the midst of Mordor's waste, and, finally, his struggle with himself involving pity and mercy in relation to Gollum, which reaches its climax beside the fires of destruction of Mount Doom.

For this reason, I think Pullman is short sighted for stating that only Gollum, out of all the hobbits, is a well developed character. I think he basically dislikes the book for reasons addressed above and is not capable of seeing what is there.

Finally, I would argue that it's not surprising that, of all the characters in the book, we can most easily see growth and change in those characters who are hobbits--both Gollum and the four fellowship hobbits. This is done through two means: the deeds and words of the hobbits themselves and some instances of actually getting inside their heads, especially with Sam. It is generally accepted that most of the action of the LotR is filtered through the hobbits' eyes. Frodo is ostensibly composing much of the narrative, presumably after he's compared notes with his fellow hobbits! Accordingly, we see the action and learn about things from their own perspectives. And just as in real life we are more aware of what's going on inside our own heads, we are more aware of depth of character with the hobbits than with the other strangers whom they're encountering for the first time.

This whole hobbit-centric viewpoint is especially evident in the character of Sam. And because most of us can aspire to be a Sam in our daily life, but not scale Frodo's lofty heights, we are given the most intimate glimpses inside Sam's head. Tolkien was aware of what he was doing: he states this quite bluntly in one of his Letters. During the War, JRRT wrote to his son Christopher and admitted that it was with Sam that he tried to delineate a character in depth, more like what he had earlier done with Bilbo:

Cert. Sam is the most closely drawn character, the successor to Bilbo of the first book, the genuine hobbit. Frodo is not so interesting because he has to be highminded, and has (as it were) a vocation. The book will prob. end up with Sam. Frodo will naturally become too ennobled and rarified by the achievement of the great Quest and will pass West with all the great figures; but S. will settled down to the Shire and gardens and inns.

For all these reasons, Tolkien intends that we see Aragorn as the hobbits see him, which is in a certain limited way: as the heroic figure who was ordained by a whole string of historical events. Overwhelmed as they were with everything new going on about them, could the hobbits have detected the subtle nuances in Aragorn's personality? My personal opinion is 'no'.

You know it's strange. By training and early profession, I am a historian. When I read LotR, and even more when I read Silm and HoMe, I feel, on some level, as if I am reading history (admittedly mythological!) rather than literature per se. And because of that I do not expect the intimate interior glimpses of folk that is so popular in modern literature. Indeed, I expect to see these folk as I see characters in the pageant of history. Some of their motives and feelngs are clearly evident and others are much less so. I am grateful for the interior glimpses I get, but I do not resent the instances like Aragorn where I can only guess at what is going on inside. For me, it is part of the mystery and enchantment of the whole book. Would I have been happier to have been presented with all the answers such as we get in the depiction of many characters in modern literature where we know them inside out? I personally do not think so. But, at heart, this is a matter of individual preference rather than something that critics should determine. Or that's how it seems to me!

Addendum: I was so long typing this crazy post that I missed Littlemanpoet's comments, but I certainly agree with them.

[ November 09, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Finwe]

*applauds Child of the 7th Age*


I sincerely agree with you. Much of the perspective of the characters in the book influences how the reader sees them. To the Hobbits, small, vulnerable, and needing guidance, Aragorn seems like a mighty King of old, flowing cloak, gleaming sword, etc. They don't really get much of a chance to know him as a person, and thus, he seems like the archetypal hero-king.

Another thing that I have noticed is that many people don't "like" Frodo because they claim that he is just too weak. I beg to differ. Throughout his possession of the One Ring, all of Frodo's resources are directed inward, to help him wage a war inside himself to resist his temptation to claim the Ring. When all of his resources and mental capabilities are diverted like that, it is extremely difficult to "take care of yourself." That was why he needed Sam.

Some people also dislike Sam because they claim his love for Frodo has homosexual undercurrents. That is absolutely preposterous. Along with the blessing of more openness in this society, has come the curse of seeing innuendo in just about every part of daily life. Yes, it is rare to find a completely platonic relationship in which two people love each other completely, but the Frodo-Sam relationship is indeed one such rarity.

[ November 09, 2003: Message edited by: Finwe ]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Saucepan Man, this is a great topic! I am enjoying everyone's posts very much. I for one like both kinds of books, those with ‘mind reading’ and those where I have to read between the lines for characterization. Obviously, since I’m here, I appreciate Tolkien’s way of writing his characters – perhaps because it leaves me more leeway for my own interpretation?!

I would like to break a lance for Aragorn's character. There is one part of the story that has endeared him to me greatly – his relationship to Éowyn. I find his tact and compassion shown in the way he handles a very difficult situation, being loved without returning that love. The fact that he is aware of her intense interest and beginning infatuation soon after their first meeting shows a perception that not every man in a similar situation would have. Later, when he parts from her to pass through the Paths of the Dead, one brief sentence shows us that he does not take her feelings lightly: “Only those who knew him well and were near to him saw the pain that he bore.” Doesn’t that sound like the traditional British way? – Not flaunting emotions does not mean that they do not exist.

The next time the two meet is in the Houses of Healing; what Aragorn says about her shows how perceptive and sensitive he is, and that he lets himself be touched by the emotions of others without losing track of himself: Few other griefs amid the ill chances of this world have more bitterness and shame for a man’s heart than to behold the love of a lady so fair and brave that cannot be returned. Sorrow and pity have followed me ever since I left her desperate in Dunharrow and rode to the Paths of the Dead; and no fear upon that way was so present as the fear what might befall her. And yet, Éomer, I say to you that she loves you more truly than me; for you she loves and knows; but in me she loves only a shadow and a thought: a hope of glory and great deeds, and lands far from the fields of Rohan. That shows a perceptive insight into Éowyn’s character.

Aragorn is able to acknowledge her beauty and worth without having ulterior motives. Éowyn’s final scene in the book is at her wedding to Faramir. He says: “No niggard are you, Éomer, to give thus to Gondor the fairest thing in your realm!” Then to Éowyn, “I have wished thee joy ever since first I saw thee. It heals my heart to see thee now in bliss.” These passages give a deep look into his character, as I see it.

Another interesting glimpse into an unexpected aspect of Aragorn is shown to us in one of my favourite chapters, ‘The Houses of Healing’. Here we see his sense of humour. First of all, the fact that he is not offended at being called ‘Strider’ by Pippin after being revealed as king, but even takes that name for his royal house, shows humour and humility.

Then, Aragorn manages to see the funny side of his conversation with Ioreth without hurting or belittling her. When her tongue rattles on and on, he says dryly, “One thing is also short, time for speech.” Then, “run as quick as your tongue…” To the herb-master he says. “I care not whether you say now asëa aranion or kingsfoil, so long as you have some.” Granted, these are not thigh-slapping jokes; they need attentive reading, but they crack me up every time!

His generous and considerate nature is also shown in another brief sentence - the King even has a smile and some words for the errand boy, Bergil, who fears that the kingsfoil he brings might not be enough or fresh enough – “It will serve. Stay and be comforted!”

Some pages later in the same chapter, Aragorn encourages Merry to smoke despite his feeling of loss after Théoden’s death. There is such a gentle kindness to his words, then he cracks me up again with this speech: Master Meriadoc, if you think that I have passed through the mountains and the realm of Gondor with fire and sword to bring herbs to a careless soldier who throws away his gear, you are mistaken. If your pack has not been found, then you must send for the herb-master of this House. And he will tell you that he did not know that the herb you desire had any virtues, but that it is called westmansweed by the vulgar, and galenas by the noble, and other names in other tongues more learned, and after adding a few half-forgotten rhymes that he does not understand, he will regretfully inform you that there is none in the House, and he will leave you to reflect on the history of tongues. That is pure British understated humour at its very best, which is what we should expect of Tolkien as an author; I’m sure not all readers share a taste for it and appreciate it, but I do!

Are compassion, kindness, gentleness and humour less interesting in a personality than struggles and weaknesses??

[Aiwendil]

The Saucepan Man wrote:
OK, to re-phrase the question, is Aragorn a believable character, lacking as he does any inner conflict? And, if he is not, is the ideal which he presents nevertheless appealing to us as readers? If so, why, if he is not a believable character?


I think that there are two questions to be distinguished here. First, is Aragorn realistic? I don't think so. The Lord of the Rings is not realistic; nor ought we to demand that it be.

The second, and more important, question, is whether Aragorn is a believable character within the context of The Lord of the Rings. As Tolkien said somewhere (perhaps it was in "On Fairy Stories"? I can't recall), "the green sun" is a perfectly believable phrase if given the right context. In other words, if you can create a world in which it makes sense to have a green sun, you are perfectly justified in using the phrase. Similarly, if one can create a world wherein it makes sense to have heroic characters without inner conflict, one is justified in using them. It is not realism that matters; it is believability (and realism is just believability within the context of the real world).

The Saucepan Man wrote:
I do not feel that I "know" these characters at all, other than as heroic characters.

Indulge me.

I do think that these characters have some depth; but that is just an opinion, and others may certainly disagree. I didn't mean to imply that I know the Silmarillion better than anyone else, or have access to some characterization to which others are blind.

But, since you asked, I'll talk about the ways in which I perceive Beren's character to be subtly drawn; then I'll comment more briefly on Hurin and Tuor.

Beren is the quintessential hero. At first this might sound like a detriment to his characterization, but remember that Tolkien believed strongly in the ideal of heroism and, if I may say so, in it's depth.

Right away we have some "associations" for Beren. He is of the House of Beor, of whose members it is said "if these [the folk of Hador] surpassed them in swiftness of mind and body, in daring and noble generosity, the Folk of Beor were more steadfast in endurance of hardship and sorrow, slow to tears or to laughter; their fortitude needed no hope to sustain it" ("Of Dwarves and Men" XII 308). The last bit is the most important; I'll return to it in a moment.

The House of Beor is also associated with Finrod Felagund and his house (as opposed to the House of Hador, associated with Fingolfin). And indeed, the friendship of Finrod plays a major role in the story. Finrod is always presented as the most reasonable and fair-minded of the kings of the Noldor.

Another association comes from the character of Gorlim. Observe the points of similarity between Beren and Gorlim: both desire escape from the war; both identify this escape with an object of love; both are bound by an oath (to Barahir for Gorlim and to Thingol for Beren) which is tested against this desire. Beren's oath passes the test; Gorlim's does not. But the character of Gorlim shows us that it is not inevitable that Beren prove loyal to his oath in the end; it gives us a glimpse at the other option which Beren must have considered and rejected. (One could do quite an essay on the theme of oaths and their fulfillment and betrayal in the tale of Beren and Luthien).

The most important aspect of Beren's characterization, though, is his shifting motivation. At the outset, he has no particular motivation beyond what is common to all of Barahir's band (though this in itself is somewhat strong - their homeland was overrun). But with the death of Barahir and his companions, things change. Beren vows to seek vengeance for his father's death. He remains in Dorthonion alone. But he is without hope:

"As fearless Beren was renowned,
when men most hardy upon ground
were reckoned folk would speak his name,
foretelling that his after-fame
would even golden Hador pass
or Barahir or Bregolas;
but sorrow now his heart had wrought
to fierce despair, no more he fought
in hope of life or joy or praise,
but seeking so to use his days
only that Morgoth deep should feel
the sting of his avenging steel,
ere death he found and end of pain:
his only fear was thraldom's chain."
(Lay of Leithian, III 343).

Now recall "Of Dwarves and Men": "their fortitude needed no hope to sustain it." Beren is like a Norse hero. He is certain that he will eventually be defeated, and yet he continues to fight. Interestingly, the above passage is one of the few instances of internal characterization in the Silmarillion material.

But when he is surrounded and on the point of being caught and killed, something changes. His despair wasn't absolute after all (though it must have been nearly so). For he flees Dorthonion and climbing into the mountains he sees Doriath and "There it was put into his heart that he would go down into the Hidden Kingdom, where no mortal foot had yet trodden" (Silm. 198). He was without hope, motivated only by the desire to do harm to Morgoth. Now he is motivated by a kind of unknown hope.

The unknown hope becomes known when he reaches Doriath: it is love for Luthien. It is as if the Norse ideal was answered, unlooked for, by something like the Christian ideal. When "the song of Luthien released the bonds of winter" (Silm. 199), it had a similar effect on Beren's despair.

But this love is turned back into Norse resolve without hope before the end. After his release from Tol-in-Gaurhoth, Beren sees little hope in his quest - but his fortitude needs no hope to sustain it. "Then being now alone and on the threshold of the final peril he made the Song of Parting, in praise of Luthien and the lights of heaven; for he believed that he must now say farewell to both love and light . . . And he sang aloud, caring not what ear should overhear him, for he was desperate and looked for no escape" (Silm. 216). This is a kind of ironic intensification of the Norse hero's situation. For now there is a goal for which to strive and a satisfactory conclusion can be envisioned; but Beren deems the achievement of that conclusion utterly hopeless. And again this hopelessness is answered by hope unsought when the quest is achieved.

Beren's psychological depth, then, consists in great part in his inner conflict between hopelessness and hope. Another way to think about the same thing is in terms of a desire to escape (a theme which is central to "Beren and Luthien" - observe the subtitle of the Geste: "Release from Bondage"). He desires escape from Dorthonion and later escape from his oath, but he denies these to himself. And he eventually achieves escape from both mortality (for he dies and returns to life) and immortality (for he nonetheless dies again in the end, and Luthien with him).

It would be fun to repeat this exercise in full for Hurin and Tuor (and others). But alas, I don't have the time (did I just hear cries of joy from some readers?) But I offer some notes.

Hurin: Hadorians are typically tall and fair-haired, Hurin is fair-haired but short (the opposite of his son, who is tall but dark-haired). This means that while we can expect many of the associations of the House of Hador to apply to him, others will not. Chief, perhaps, is his steadfastness, which is more typical of the House of Beor. There is a great deal of interesting contrast with Morwen (a striking character herself). When Lalaith died, Morwen "met her grief in silence and coldness of heart. But Hurin mourned openly" (Narn i Chin Hurin, UT 64). Hurin's steadfastness is a complicated thing: in a sense he defies Morgoth to the end, refusing to betray Turgon. But in another sense he fails, for he is made bitter and grim, and he brings ruin to Brethil and to Doriath. It is fascinating to compare the Hurin of the first part of the Narn with the Hurin of "The Wanderings of Hurin".

Tuor: He is closely associated with Ulmo. And Ulmo is associated with the fair and simple, the free and natural (as opposed to Aule the artificer) - and thus, for example, with the Teleri rather than the Noldor. So Tuor is fair and simple (simple, obviously, not meaning un-intelligent but rather un-contrived, un-ironic). He does not grow up in splendor, but in the rugged woodlands. He is the first human to reach the sea, and thus the first to know the sea-longing of the Elves. He is contrasted in an immediate sort of way with Maeglin, who has an unnatural infatuation with Idril and is a miner (Aule associations). He is contrasted in a larger sense with Turin (there are many parallels between these two). Turin is dark, Tuor is light. Turin fights against his unhappy doom, Tuor accepts his happy fate. Turin, with the best of intentions, unnaturally refuses to give in to his love for Finduilas, but accepts his unnatural love for Niniel; Tuor accepts his natural love for Idril.

In this way, I think that a careful reading of the Silmarillion material reveals a great deal of subtlety in characterization, though it is not characterization of the typical sort. A great deal relies on what I have called "associations". There is a natural urge to dismiss these, for they are not what we typically have in mind when we think about characterization. But within Tolkien's legendarium, these associations really do have force, and they really do contribute to the pictures drawn of it's great heroes.

littlemanpoet wrote:
Card goes on to describe how LotR is a milieu story, and shows how Tolkien's characterization is appropriate to a milieu story.

I have this book! And I have, to be honest, always felt a little ill at ease with Card's categorization of LotR as a milieu story. I would call it a plot-driven story, though certainly the milieu is a major factor. But in any event, I think you are right in contrasting it with the character-driven story.

Child of the 7th Age wrote:
Given the possibilities of a children's story, I don't see how anyone could argue that we don't get inside Bilbo's head. We certainly do!

Right you are. In The Hobbit we actually get quite a bit of internal characterization of Bilbo, and even, occasionally, internal characterization of other characters.

Estelyn Telcontar wrote:
I would like to break a lance for Aragorn's character. There is one part of the story that has endeared him to me greatly – his relationship to Éowyn.

I had always thought that it was Eowyn's character that gains most from this interaction; but I do see something of your point. There is definitely some implied depth of feeling here that is extremely well-hidden by Aragorn.

[ November 09, 2003: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[ November 09, 2003: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

One more note on Aragorn. I do believe Tolkien would have had to be careful his tale did not detract from the main story, as it well might have.

[Eurytus]

My views about this issue have probably been expressed enough in the “Dumbing down the books” thread but I will add a little here.
Reading through this thread I found this comment

To the reader who just quickly reads over it, not putting a lot of thought or effort into it, doesn't typically read much, or isn't old enough to understand fully, there may not seem to be much depth to the characters. But those of us who are older, or read a lot more, so can have a better grasp of it, I think there is great amount of depth to some characters.

to be perhaps a little arrogant in its assumption that if you have a problem with the characterisation in LOTR then you simply aren’t intelligent enough to understand it.

As a more general observation though I would note that most of the people who have been posting their defence of the level of characterisation of Tolkien’s characters have been able to summarise their “deep” characters with the use of a single paragraph. And on occasion that paragraph has included some padding.

For me Pullman got it almost bang on. He should possibly have added Denethor to the list of deeper characters.
However in regards to the others he is spot on.

Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas are perhaps overused examples of paper-thin characters so let’s pick another example.

Faramir is occasionally portrayed as a complex character and evidence is sited of his attempts to gain his father’s good grace as a reason for this. In reality this is woefully thin. Faramir was a character that Tolkien idealised in many ways and as a result you have someone who is so “good” its painful.

Boromir too. In the film they attempt to give him some depth and portray the conflict within. After all from Boromir’s point of view he is a good character. He genuinely believes that using the Ring is the best course of action, he is not doing it because he is evil. But in the book he is portrayed as the “least noble” of the fellowship from the beginning. Reduced in many ways to the role of pantomime villain.

Comparing Tolkien’s characterisation with other famous novels is perhaps a way of spotlighting how lightweight Tolkien’s are.

Compare Boromir to Captain Ahab for example.
Take a look at Pip’s journey in Great Expectations.
Holden Caulfield in A Catcher in the Rye.
Pinkie in Brighton Rock.
The amazing characters in I, Claudius.

I think we can debate the “why’s” of Tolkien’s shallow characterisation. There may well have been reasons why he did it like he did. But it is hard to deny that in comparison to other “classic” works Tolkien just wasn’t interested in the characters.

[Arwen1858]

I found this comment to be perhaps a little arrogant in its assumption that if you have a problem with the characterisation in LOTR then you simply aren’t intelligent enough to understand it.

I didn't mean it in that way. People who do read through a book quickly, sometimes just skimming it over to get through it, may not catch everything. I've done this plenty of times myself. If I don't particularly care for a book, or even if I really like it, and just want to see the ending quicker so I know what happens, I will read through it really quickly, and miss a lot of things because I'm not taking it slowly, and thinking about what I'm reading. I missed so much last year when I read LotR the first time! Because I really wanted to know what happened, and how Frodo ended up, if the ring was destroyed, and what happened to everyone. But when I read it again this year, I made myself take it slowly so I could pay more attention to it, and I saw a lot of things I had missed the first time through. I'm sorry if what I said came across as arrogant. I didn't mean it in that way at all.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

The Saucepan Man wrote:
Does this mean that "psychological depth" (ie inner conflic and struggle) is less appealing to us as readers and that we are looking for the ideals in our reading material? Is this perhaps a plus in Tolkien's approach, rather than a flaw? Is this where he succeeds over other writers in that, in his most obviously commendable characters, he is offering us an ideal? Do we react better to these ideal characters than to those who (albeit in a more grandiose fashion) might represent more closely our own inner struggles?

I would not say necessarily that “psychological depth” is less appealing to us as readers, though I do know that I tend to be drawn to books that are concerned with ideals and/or the struggle to fit that ideal, whatever it may be. So I do not find that psychological depth is unappealing. (Though I prefer Thomas Hardy & George Eliot to Dostoevsky.)

Tolkien’s works on the other hand, are uplifting and serves to give us a model of nobility of spirit to strive for whether it is Sam or Theoden or Aragorn, which other books do not. It is a more hopeful and inspirational work, though admittedly less realistic.

It doesn’t seem correct to speak on whether an approach is right or wrong, for a book should be judged on how effective it is, does the method employed work? In Tolkien’s case I think it worked very well. If it would have been written with more of the internal workings it would have turned out an entirely different book.

[Essex]

I only had time to skim through this great looking thread, so a quick point first.

re BTW, I once put up a thread comparing these two authors, but had few takers. Still wondering if anyone out there has any views and opinions on Pullman in relation to Tolkien.......

I think Pullman calling Tolkien's character's having no physcological depth is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

His dark materials are refreshingly great, but I can see NO example of his characters having any MORE depth than the main characters in LOTR. And yes I HAVE read the books, really like them, and have feelings towards the characters. I can gauge this by crying at the end of the 3rd book as I do in LOTR. And it's quite a simillar ending to LOTR when you think about it isn't it? I won't spoil it, but for you out there who have read it, see if you can get what I mean. Think of the position of the main 2 characters in both books and how they finish up respective of each other..........

So Mr Pullman, those without sin cast the first stone etc!!!!

PS Faramir is one of my favourites for his characterisation. A master interrogator.

[Olorin_TLA]

And that's the thing - if you empathise with a character to the point of going through heir emotions, inc crying, surely it's psychology is in no position to be criticised?

[Finwe]

Different people cry for different emotional intensities. What could make you cry is probably vastly different from what would make me cry. For example, books by J.R.R. Tolkien, Mercedes Lackey, and Susan Cooper make me cry. To other people, books by Mercedes Lackey and Susan Cooper may not be emotional enough to cry over. It is a matter of personal opinion.

I personally believe that Tolkien's characters have great psychological depth. Pullman can believe what he wants to, after all this is a free country. I just think that he needs to take into consideration the type of story that Tolkien wanted, the type of characters, and the writing style that he used. All of those criteria influence the characters. Pullman's "criteria" are vastly different, and thus, his characters are vastly different. Unless you have the same "criteria," you can't really compare characters, or claim that they have no psychological depth.

[Lush]

Let's not discredit Pullman for having an opinion.

I've read his stuff, and I don't have to agree with any of his ideas to know that this man knows the score when it comes to good literary characterization.

Saying that Pullman's secularism and adherence to modern standards somehow takes away from his ability to make a fair assessment of what's going on with Tolkien's characters doesn't jive with me.

What is this nebulous modernity that we are trying to define in relation to Pullman's views on Tolkien?

If Pullman is "modern," so are you. And you and you and you. And me. That doesn't stop us from enjoying Tolkien, right?

I think the matter lies largely within the confines of personal taste and personal expectation.

Was Tolkien good at creating psychologically believable characters? Personally, I'd say, not really.

But I didn't pick up the LotR expecting to find some fascinating Freudian parallel contained within Aragorn's relationship with his sword.

I leave that stuff to the likes of F. Scott Fitzgerald and so on, and so forth.

Tolkien fills that other niche for me, the part in my mind that longs to read about galloping steeds and shining rings and kingdoms far, far away.

I don't need psychological depth to enjoy this particular sort of story.

Pullman does. So what? Maybe he knows something we don't. He's seems to be a pretty capable dude, secular or not, "modern" or not. He's been kicking major literary butt, and deservedly so, and I think we ought to take heed of his words, without necessarily letting them tarnish our enjoyment of Tolkien.

I mean, it shouldn't matter if Aragorn will never be as psychologically deep as King Lear.

As long as you are still able to have fun while reading, thinking about, and discussing the story.

[Evisse the Blue]

I find it interesting that some of you feel like 'defending' Tolkien by arguing that his characters have as much depth as any. But by agreeing that Tolkien's strong point was not characterization, but creating a certain atmosphere, the milieu from littlemanpoet's quote - you don't undermine his quality of a writer. I agree with Lush that Tolkien's stories simply serve a different purpose than, say -Tolstoy's. At times I may feel like reading about the turmoils and ridiculousness of human emotions - it's then that I turn to another favourite writer of mine: Iris Murdoch; at other times I feel like reading about ideal characters and brave deeds and mythic ages, then I turn to Tolkien and the Norse myths.

But what happens is - after a long period of reading Tolkien I find it very difficult to turn to another type of book and viceversa, because I find the other shallow and unnatural. This - to me, is the ultimate proof that the fantasy genre lacks what you have been calling 'psychological depth'. But, as I said before, I do not consider this a flaw.

[mark12_30]

Tolkien’s works on the other hand, are uplifting and serves to give us a model of nobility of spirit to strive for whether it is Sam or Theoden or Aragorn, which other books do not. It is a more hopeful and inspirational work, though admittedly less realistic.

It's only less realistic when one lives in a society where striving for nobility is not valued. We seem to think nowadays that striving for nobility is hypocritical or a waste of time. Aragorn, Frodo, Sam, Theoden would have disagreed-- and so would Tolkien. (And so do I.)

Nowadays many of us view character development as, "from slime pit to acceptability". Tolkien, I think, views character development more from Acceptability to Nobility. As was mentioned in the Great War thread, we don't value character nearly as much as we value happiness; we strive for what we value. So heroic striving for nobility looks unrealistic to us, which is too bad. I think we'd be happier anyway if we were striving for genuine nobility. But we often dodge this struggle because we might fail and be called a hypocrite. Yes, everybody has a weakness or thirty. Many of Tolkien's characters, however, have already fought off twenty-five of their weaknesses.

Any software engineer knows that 80% of the development takes 20% of the time, and 20% of the development takes 80% of the time. But that doesn't mean it isn't worth spending all that time striving to get the last 20% of the development right. In our modern age, character development has come to mean moving up in the first 80% of improving our character. We don't understand the struggle to finish the final twenty percent. As long as we'renot in trouble, we figure we're doing okay; and that's our current societal value. We don't value sainthood any more. Too bad.

LOTR seems unrealistic to us because the characters are further along the road to nobility than we are; does that surprise us? We don't journey towards what we don't value, so why should we be surprised that we haven't arrived? I love LOTR precisely because it calls us higher, and shows us what (as a society) we have forgotten and abandoned. In his letters, Tolkien referred to unprincipled men as orcs. I wonder how he'd feel about modern society. I shudder to think.

Aragorn is 87 years old. We're not privy to his early development-- sixty-some-odd years of sleeping in ditches and swamps and strolling through Mordor. We get to watch his final struggles; we see him finally accomplishishing in two years what he prepared sixty-seven years for. He's already developed courage, perseverance, determination, purity, etc etc. His final polishing-- perhaps it's more like the final 5% of his preparation-- is in Leadership. In Bree, he's a loner. Down the Anduin, we watch him struggle to lead the company, and his development, one decision at a time.

Well, that was a wild ramble, and just in case my point was lost in the confusion, let me restate it: I think TOlkien does a superb job of developing characters who struggle through that final 20% of development of nobility and virtue.

[ November 14, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Eurytus]

It's only less realistic when one lives in a society where striving for nobility is not valued. We seem to think nowadays that striving for nobility is hypocritical or a waste of time. Aragorn, Frodo, Sam, Theoden would have disagreed-- and so would Tolkien. (And so do I.)

Whilst I agree to an extent with your view of today's society when you say "nowadays" you give the impression that it was somehow better in the past.
This is not the case I fear. Mankind has always been flawed, its just that modern technology has given us the ability to be flawed on a much greater scale than before.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Here, here Helen! I think I should have said such characters are a rare find rather than unrealistic in today's world where cleverness is valued above honor. I have had the pleasure of knowing some noble spirits whose struggles with evil are on a different scale. But I'm wandering off topic I believe.

[mark12_30]

Of course mankind has always been flawed. Tolkien wrote endlessly about the fall and its repercussions. Those repercussions are everywhere.

But society has not always valued pleasure and happiness over character and virtue. There is a great contrast between the pursuit of truth and virtue, versus the pursuit of happiness. And there have been numerous seasons where society valued truth and virtue more.

(Edit) Thanks, Hilde!

One of the things I find oddly comforting about Tolkien is his ability to value both virtue and happiness. The hobbits are praised for their enjoyment of everyday blessings; and Strider crowned Aragorn can still enjoy a pipe and a mug of good beer. But the pipe and the beer don't make him less virtuous. What am I getting at? It's not a rabidly puritannical avoidance of pleasure.

I think we come full circle to innocence again; I'd like to develop that but haven't the time at the moment...

[ November 14, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Lyta_Underhill]

I think TOlkien does a superb job of developing characters who struggle through that final 20% of development of nobility and virtue.
So true! But even within the context of the characters who are struggling with this final 20%, I see humanity within the nobility, so to speak. I have recently re-read the portions of the Two Towers wherein Frodo, Sam and Gollum are travelling towards Cirith Ungol (before the Stairs and Shelob), and the "rarified and noble" character of Frodo resonates so deeply at this point that I, the reader, like Frodo, fall into a keen, almost unendurable despair at the sight of the Morgul host marching West, until Sam awakens him with a tone that Frodo might hear if Sam were in the Shire saying, "Your breakfast is ready." My identification is so close with Frodo at this point that Sam's words snap something and make me exclaim aloud "Thank Eru for SAM!" I don't think that I would have this reaction if the friendship between Faramir and Frodo had not been so finely drawn in my perception; the effect of Frodo's watching the army marching towards Faramir plucks this invisible but firmly drawn thread that links the two in mind and purpose, and I feel a desperate need to warn Faramir and a despair that Faramir and the forces of Gondor will be able to deal with the vast host I am watching on its march from Minas Morgul. At this point, I have become Frodo in my own experience and fallen into the book. Frodo's weakness is my own, although I do not pretend I would ever be able to walk in his hairy footsteps, as he is far more developed in nobility than I ever will be! There is an intense identification with a character who is unquestionably noble but also human, so far as Hobbits are human!

I know this is not everyone's experience, and I think perhaps it depends on your own point of view which character or which author's characters, if any, have this effect on you. But this does not happen with every book I read, and I attribute a fine sensibility to Tolkien for being able to "turn me into Frodo" for a few moments so completely that I can feel the keenness of his need for Sam and his struggle with despair.

OK, I hope y'all haven't minded indulging me in yet another rhapsody on Frodo's character again...just can't help it sometimes, especially when I am re-reading some of my favorite passages. I'm sure there is very little argument that Frodo is well developed, being the main character and all, but even main characters in other works, for all their finely drawn psychological traits, do not engulf me so completely as Frodo does.

I hope this at least marginally fits the topic! smilies/biggrin.gif Thanks for your indulgence!

Cheers,
Lyta

[Eurytus]

But society has not always valued pleasure and happiness over character and virtue. There is a great contrast between the pursuit of truth and virtue, versus the pursuit of happiness. And there have been numerous seasons where society valued truth and virtue more.
Still not sure I agree. Many societies may have valued truth and virtue, or at least they appeared to.
Take the Victorian age as an example. An era still beloved by Conservatives everywhere. So much so that a political party in the UK preached for a return to Victorian values.

And yet the Victorians were the masters of hypocricy. At ease with the extreme diferences in wealth, presiding over some of the worst slums the world has ever seen. Secure in their religious persecutions of 'lesser' races.
Preaching a strict sexual code and yet rampant with perversion.

In my opinion there has never been a golden age which valued truth and virtue, at least never without also engaging in hypocrisy.

Then against that take the foundation of the NHS. One of the greatest examples of doing something for the benefit of the needy.

Take something like "Band Aid". Perhaps the biggest event ever to publiscise the plight of the poor of Africa.

There are many other examples.

To my mind the values you seek our there if you look for them. The only difference is that people are more cynical now and more easily spot the hypocrits and those that do not practice what they preach.

[Lush]

Eurytus, you have taken the words out of my mouth (sort of) and I demand reimbursement. smilies/wink.gif

I am studying Victorian literature this semester, and beneath the facade of virtue and nobility Victorian society seemed to espouse there lay a teeming pit of every kind of sexual, psychological and religious perversion.

Furthermore, the papal authority preached "virtue," while the popes took on mistresses and surrounded themselves with jewels and gold (Schism, anyone?)

Freakin' JFK was the paragon of the noble spirit of American character, and he treated women *** very badly *** <--- BW's edit

The Golden Age, if there ever was one, could not have possibly been contained within the plane that human beings have occupied since the dawn of history. I largely view it as something more metaphysical, and not bound to any particular time-frame.

What I'm trying to get at (perhaps not too eloquently) is that the values that Tolkien espouses do not clash with the modern age (though his style might, at least for some...but then again people all over the world still read Chaucer, so perhaps that point is largely moot).

And Philip Pullman's attitude toward the work has, once again, little to do with where Western society stands in terms of its morals and ethics today.

The fact that Pullman was able to articulate his viewpoint in the first place is more related to current attitudes and styles (imagine His Dark Materials being published in the afore-mentioned Victorian times!), but not the viewpoint itself.

Yesterday's sin is today's sin in a new package, and it should be arriving dressed up in some creative variation on our doorstep tomorrow (though there are signs in the Bible that say that things will get worse before they get better, I do not view the growth of sin in the world to be a linear progression that would allow us to accurately state that yesterday was better than today).

Basically, if it seems to us that society values pleasure over character today, it may be because society has become a little bit more honest with itself.

As in: We all suck. Huzzah.

Furthermore, Helen I find that the pursuit of truth and virtue should go hand-in-hand with the pursuit of happiness, because a person that is truly happy is also both truthful and virtuous (as in, the people that chase drugs and sex and violence for a nebuluous version of "happiness" are, in fact, quite miserable folk, as I know firsthand). And I think we can see that in Tolkien.

But as I said before, Tolkien really wasn't big in exploring the human psyche and its pursuits.

His strengths lay elsewhere.

[ November 14, 2003: Message edited by: The Barrow-Wight ]

[lindil]

Tolkien really wasn't big in exploring the human psyche and its pursuits

hmmm, I thought that through the Elves and Dwarves, Ents and Hobbits, he was exploring the human psyche [or in the case of the Elves] it's idealized, or rarely realized potentials?

This to me is also another reason I see as utterly shallow, the charge of paper-thin charcterizations. The depth is nearly always there, provided you have been given a sort of Smith of Wooten Major star for your mind, to be able to perceive what the text says, as well as the impressions it creates.

What you get out of any text is of course equally dependent on the quality of your awareness as it is upon the words themselves.

As Aiwendil rightly pointed out in the dumbing down thread, Tolkien palces demands upon his readers: that they correlate information about specific characters or scenarios given often in widely different chapters texts or sources, and that be willing to read something more than once [ The Silmarillion is a perfect example of this for many people].

[Eurytus]

As Aiwendil rightly pointed out in the dumbing down thread, Tolkien palces demands upon his readers: that they correlate information about specific characters or scenarios given often in widely different chapters texts or sources, and that be willing to read something more than once [ The Silmarillion is a perfect example of this for many people].

I love the view that it is the readers fault for not seeing the depth in the characters.

I would also point that it is absolutely no defence to state that one should be willing to read numerous sources in order to understand the characters. An author should put all the necessary information in the story itself and not rely on additional (unpublished) sources.

[lindil]

I love the view that it is the readers fault for not seeing the depth in the characters.

Fault, to me implies that it is some sort of sin to be less than super-conscious at any given moment.

Of course there is something to the idea that not all books are written to be read the same way, and thusly, some through willfulness, ignorance or lack of sensitivity, will miss the boat entirely.

I am sure there are great works of Art that I have stood before in a museum, and got virtually nothing from, that a trained artist or lover of art, could look at and feel the state of the painter, felt his heart open in response or appreciation, or feel whatever emotion or idea was being embedded into the work.


What one gets out of anything: a movie, a lecture, a book, even one's own ponderings can very vastly from person to person [obviously] and equally importantly to my mind, but far less generally accepted, it is never a constant variable within the same person.

I look at and experience Tolkien [and a few other art forms, like Tai-Chi Chuan, some of the music of Yes - not too mention prayer and meditation] as an exercise in awareness. It is something I repeat over and over over the years. And I find I am rewarded with depth and quality [of characters, subtlty of plot, appreciation of new levels of archtypal and elemental themes and images, etc] every time I read LotR and Silm and co.

I would also point that it is absolutely no defence to state that one should be willing to read numerous sources in order to understand the characters. An author should put all the necessary information in the story itself and not rely on additional (unpublished) sources.

This brings up several intersting points:

1- JRRT wanted, and rather intensely at that, to publish the Silm in conjunction with the LotR. This would have given, for instance, literally thousands of years of back history to a character like Aragorn, we would already understand what 'the Heir of Isildur' means in a far greater sense had the above publishing happened as JRRT wished. This would in turn influence our [or at least it would my] reading of his actions in FotR.

However this did not happen. So can one fault JRRT for not putting all of Elrond's or Galadriel's or even Sauron's backstory
into the LotR ?

As we read in the 'official Biography': It was possible to say that The Lord of the Rings stood up as an independent story, but becuase it included obscure references to the earlier mythology it would be better if the two books could be published together.

Tolkien also said something on the order of: 'The two [Silm and LotR] are one to me'.

So for Tolkien 'The story' could not be put into 'story' it was far, far too large. To large to put into one volume [or three], to large to write in a decade or as it proved for JRRT even in 60 years. He had tapped into a mine, so rich and deep that there was no procedures in place for maximizing or streamlining it's output. As Sam says on the border of Morder [showing a depth to his character that simply can not be appreciated fully till the Silmarillion is read], '...Beren now, he never thought he was going to get that Silmaril from the Iron Crown in Thangorodrim, and yet he did...and why I never thought of that before! We've got - you've got some of the light of it in that star-glass that the Lady gave you! Why, to think of it, were in the same tale still! It's going on. Don't the great Tales ever end?'.

2- Unlike most other writers JRRT was dealing with an extremely deep and organic method and style of writing, that has more to do with The Bible and Homer and the Church Fathers than 'modern; writers. He was not content to write a story and be done with it. Like Niggle's Tree his Legendarium has/took on a life of it's own, and to his credit, he tried to follow this, rather than force it. This being, I believe part of his approach, one can not expect that everything will be told all at once.

Of course you are free to expect it Eurytus, but you also will be disappointed.

On the otherhand, while I personally wished JRRT [i]had finished a full blown 3 volume Silmarillion as he had plannned, I take great delight in assembling and experiencing all of the leaves from the Tree of the Legendarium that are still being found : The Osanwe-Kenta, the Letters, the linguistic bits, the History of Middle-Earth [of course], the commentary on Elvish pilgrimages and prayer in The Road Goes Ever on, etc.

The Legendarium [and thus the characters within it] are like parts of a mosaic, maybe 1/2 of it left from the original, the rest being slowly re-assembled over the decades.

For varying reasons this is bound to be a useless or frustrating or boring process to some, maybe even to many.

Indeed for me the Legendarium has become, like Tai-Chi and music and Church part of the way I think and feel and see the world. the characters may not be three dimensional, but they are often four.

I guess Eurytus, I would offer you one further analogy to use to look at the Legendarium [and within that JRRRT's style and the characters]. A garden.

While a garden is a specific peice of ground, everyting about it is dependant on something from outside itself. Seeds, Sun, a human to tend it. And what one will get from it is not a foregone conclusion. Indeed some may only get weeds, others enough to live off of and thrive. Even the type of music played around it [according to research mentioned in the Secret Life of Plants] will influence it's growth rate.

-L

[ November 15, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Legolas]

I see no specific argument for a case other than Aiwendil/lindil's general statement that Tolkien does this, but I don't believe that this is the case with Tolkien's work. In such a long work, there is definitely a requirement of correlating information found in different chapters, but as for other sources, I'm not so sure. I find little (nothing?) in The Lord of the Rings that actually requires the reader to step into a different book (Is that the point that was being made?). It seems to me that every conflict emphasized in the book (as a major or minor sequence in the plot) to be explained sufficiently within the book itself.

There are a number of details in The Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales that may enhance a reader's understanding of the events of The Hobbit and/or The Lord of the Rings, but Tolkien does not depend on this 'outside' knowledge to get his points across within the latter works. He couldn't, even, because these outside stories were not complete (or even close to complete) at the time of the others' publication.

One does not have to read the chapter on the Istari in UT to understand what the wizards are up to or what sort of role Gandalf is there to play. A read of The Silmarillion is not required to understand what the elves are dealing with. Their immortality and tendency to be preservers is presented enough within the Third Age books. The 'outside' books undoubtedly enhance the experience (or at least further understanding of what's going on in the grand scope of this history), but they are not depended upon.

[ November 15, 2003: Message edited by: Legolas ]

[lindil]

Legolas posted: find little (nothing?) in The Lord of the Rings that actually requires the reader to step into a different book (Is that the point that was being made?). It seems to me that every conflict emphasized in the book (as a major or minor sequence in the plot) to be explained sufficiently within the book itself.

To which I would compare with JRRT's letter 153:
I have, of course, considered all of the points you raise... but any kind of real answer to your more profound queries must at least wait till you have more in hand: Vol III for instance, [i]not too mention the more mythical histories of the Cosmogony, First and Second Ages.

So while I agree that a 'basic' shall we say, and by that I do not mean necessarily a simplistic, reading of LotR will be in many respects self-contained, to have a deeper understanding of the characters requires the big picture that only the Silm, UT and co. works provide.

There is even one case where we will never know what is behind it all. That of Bilbo and the Lay of Earendil. THe source tects Bilbo was workng from were never written by JRRT so upon what evidence Aragorn finds his efforts out of line [other than in general] we will never know.

But there are many other points [such as the quote of Sam above] that surely you will agree require more than the LotR to properly understand.

In another place in RotK [on the slopes of Orodruin] Sam hearkens back to the telling of the Lay of Beren and Luthien in Imladris. Surely while this does not leave confusion over the plot, you will concede that not knowing the significance or depth of the reference can not allow us to see the depth of Sam as a character at that moment?
------------------------------
again Legolas:
but Tolkien does not depend on this 'outside' knowledge to get his points across within the latter works. He couldn't, even, because these outside stories were not complete (or even close to complete) at the time of the others' publication.

Two points:
1- 'to get his points across' I agree we do not need the background texts so much. But to fully understand the depth of characterization [ the topic of the thread], I do think in many places, we only get a clear picture from multiple or wider reading.

2-All of the Silmarillion was written prior to the LotR even being begun [see The Lost Road vol. 5 for the nearly complete Pre-LotR version] , though various details and refinements were made, all of the details made mention to in the story [with afore mentioned exception of the Earendil saga which was never completed anywhere except in sketch] werre there. It is true, that much in the way of explanatory details as are found in UT were composed/discovered after, but the primary point of the Silm and LotR being one work in JRRT's mind, and in his hopes to have them published, read and understood together stands.
-L

[Eurytus]

1- JRRT wanted, and rather intensely at that, to publish the Silm in conjunction with the LotR. This would have given, for instance, literally thousands of years of back history to a character like Aragorn, we would already understand what 'the Heir of Isildur' means in a far greater sense had the above publishing happened as JRRT wished. This would in turn influence our [or at least it would my] reading of his actions in FotR.

However this did not happen. So can one fault JRRT for not putting all of Elrond's or Galadriel's or even Sauron's backstory
into the LotR ?

Sorry but I can blame him. A review of his correspondance shows that he knew well in advance that the Silmarillion was extremely unlikely to be published and so it remained up until his death.
He tried numerous times to palm various works off as a possible sequel to the Hobbit and was often rebuffed.

So yes, a work should be able to stand alone. If there is shallowness to a character in LOTR it is absolutely no defence to say, "but I've got tons of backstory for him in my unpublished scribblings!"

And further, backstory and history does not necessary give psychological depth. Take the interaction between the three leads in Jaws. Little to no backstory is needed. Little to no history. Interaction leads to depth, which is as it should be.

Hence the laughable shallowness of Legolas's (aka the shop mannikin) character.

[lindil]

Hence the laughable shallowness of Legolas's (aka the shop mannikin) character.

He is clearly meant to be a support character, he does what he does, he says what he says. Get from it what you will. For me I have never felt Legolas' lack of depth. When he speaks [praising Aragorn to Merry and Piipin in regards the Paths of the Dead] he is to me showing the fact that though an immortal, a prince and no johnny come lately, he has been in the presence of a one worthy of complete respect and devotion, and thus alot of silence, as this gives Legolas the ability to stand back and learn. Contrast this with Boromir who was always quick to speak. Legolas' silence is often louder than words.

E., from the thread on the Nazgul at Valinor (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=003702) -italics are mine: Apart from Gandalf perhaps the only other person who would have been capable of mastering it would have been Galadriel, whose true strength is only really revealed in the Silmarillion.
hmmm... very interesting. Apart from the fact that it is UT's The History of Galadriel and Celeborn [and behind that HoM-E XII's Shibboleth of Feanor] that reveal her as Feanor's equal you seem to be at odds with yourself on the 'multi-source reading shows the full character' issue.

E. you clearly have your own [seemingly deficient for your personal standards] way of reading LotR and if you wish to maintain them you of course will, but I for one, am always on the lookout for ways to appreciate art that I do not quite 'get' but that others I respect and know do.

That being the case you have been offered a banquet table of doors that open into the Legendarium by many if not most of the senior posters on this board. Perhaps you do not wish to admit there are other ways to experience literature, perhaps you do not really respect anyone else's opinion here, so trying to read LotR from their perspective and with their attitude's seems only an idea fit for the ignorant and simple.

lindil

[ November 15, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Mister Underhill]

I'm repeating the same warning here that I've issued in the "Dumbing Down" thread, for much the same reasons:

The Downs has always supported thoughtful and civil debate of almost any topic or opinion. Emphasis on thoughtful and civil. Posts that deliberately bait others and that drip with sarcasm and needlessly inflammatory language will not be tolerated further, as per our policies.

Unless this discussion can move forward with more courtesy, respectfulness, and a greater effort to put forward thoughtful arguments, I’m gonna close it down.

[Finwe]

Back to the topic...


I'm sure that Tolkien realized that the Silmarillion probably wouldn't be published hand-in-hand with LotR, but he expected that it would be published very quickly after. That way, his readers wouldn't have to wait so long to get their backstory.

I, for one, didn't feel that any of the characters were psychologically lacking. I read books in general for entertainment, not to interpret and criticize them. As I was reading LotR, yes, I realized that some backstory would have been nice, but I also realized that each character fit his/her own little niche without taking up too much room. For example, we found out enough about Legolas to understand why he did some of the things that he did, and that was enough for us to understand the story. The same thing happened with Aragorn. Readers don't really need to know the entire backstory of a character or characters, although it is nice. Nice and essential are NOT the same thing. I read the Silmarillion for the first time about 1 year after finishing LotR, and it did open up my eyes about some things (i.e. Heir of Isildur, Westernesse, Lords of the West, Aman, etc.) and it helped me enjoy the story even more. It was a story in itself, as LotR is a story in itself.

[Lush]

lindil,

I believe that the very idealization that you speak of disallows psychological depth.

But like I have said over and over again: Tolkien is no Tolstoy and Tolstoy is no Tolkien.

I didn't read War and Peace for some Balrog-butt-kicking action, and I didn't read the LotR for the psychology of Russian dances (these are extreme examples, naturally).

So whatever. You can take my head and bang it on a desk for all eternity while telling me that Tolkien's characters were psychologically "deep" and I'll just tell you to leave me alone for all eternity (at least I'm pretty sure of that, though it would be arrogant for me to assume that at this point in my life I understand everything that's going on with Frodo, for example).

Even at the moments that the reader feels closest to the characters, Tolkien is not out to plumb the complex motivations of the human psyche, he's out to touch a different string in our hearts.

(Though maybe, just maybe, those strings all lead to the same place in the end...But I'm not sure of that; I'll get back to you in a couple of decades on that one)

And you know, he does what he does beautifully, and leaves me satisfied, and so I'm cool with all that.

[ November 15, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Lost One]

This is a fascinating thread, and I'm a little hesitant to comment with what may be quite a simplistic point. To me Tolkien's approach to characterisation was quite sophisticated, and the result of his literary purposes. He was producing an epic, self-consciously so, and thus his method harked back to the tradition he was following, from Beowulf to Malory. Yet he was also writing a 20th century novel, and he had to take account of this (obviously, he had no choice here: however grounded in the past, he was a modern man himself). Thus he mingled modern characterisation (though revealed through action and dialogue, rather than internal monologue or third person analysis) with epic story-telling, but just enough to suit the medium he was (re)creating. His characters thus have as much 'personality' as they need to drive the story and engage the reader, but the creation of personality was not his prime purpose. (Though even here he is due more credit than some have given him: the maligned Aragorn is a good example. Re-reading his tense and rather aggressive first encounter with the hobbits with the information provided by the Appendices that he was lately from his mother's deathbed provides an undercurrent that is 'character'-driven rather than an aspect of the story.)

[lindil]

Lost one posted: Re-reading his {aragorn's} tense and rather aggressive first encounter with the hobbits with the information provided by the Appendices that he was lately from his mother's deathbed provides an undercurrent that is 'character'-driven rather than an aspect of the story

Very interesting, I had never caught that exact chronology before, did you peice it together yourself, or is there more source for it than the Appendix Tale of A & A?

But this is the very sort of thing [along with my Legolas example above, I think] that allows us to experience depth in the Legendarium.

Another fascinating example of character depth, perhaps even his most vivid is the last major narrative of the Silm saga to be worked on,
The Wanderings of Hurin, in The War of the Jewels.

Lush, perhaps we would disagree for eternity, but I do hope we can revisit this very thread in a decade or 2 smilies/wink.gif .

-L

[Lost One]

lindil: I'd love to claim credit for the Aragorn insight, but I owe it to Paul Kocher's excellent book, 'Master of Middle-earth', which has a whole chapter on Aragorn's role and characterisation. In my memory at least, this is a terrific book, but I don't know if it's currently available.

[littlemanpoet]

I usually agree whole heartedly with Lindil, but there is one exception this time. I don't think it takes a reading of the Sil or the other extra-LotR works to gain a full appreciation for the richness of LotR. It didn't in my case. I had only read The Hobbit, its appropriate but not truly necessary prequel.

It seems to me that a certain mind-set is more necessary than all the back-reading. I was blessed, or fortunate, to have it. I'm not sure what to call this mind-set, but I might venture to describe it as more or less not satisfied with the world as it is perceived - a desire for wonder - which reminds me of Tolkien's On Faerie Stories, which I also read after LotR, with its triad of Escape, Recovery, and Consolation.

Having this mind-set, and thus enjoying LotR for the first read, more or less sends one into the appendices, and then back for a re-reading of LotR, which invariably enriches one's appeciation and understanding of Middle Earth. One might follow this with Unfinished Tales and the History, but the appreciation and understanding seem already to be there by then.

[Lyta_Underhill]

One might follow this with Unfinished Tales and the History, but the appreciation and understanding seem already to be there by then. Good point, littlemanpoet! I do find that the mindset I had upon the second reading of LOTR was much more conducive to understanding and appreciation than the first time around, when I was distracted and could not fully delve into the meanings I wished uncovered in my reading. Perhaps the difference lies in the concentration of detail, some of the richness of Tolkien lies in the dense resonance that his Silmarillion and histories, etc. create within a tale that, to my mind, is self-contained, even with its references to the greater histories. (I must say that a subsequent reading of LOTR after the Silm. yields yet more richness). It is to the Professor's credit that this vast source material DOES exist, for in most works, we can only guess at meanings and intentions. But it does not mean that the source material is necessary for an appreciation of the core trilogy. It is simply a great bonus that, once read, cannot be forgotten; thus it is automatically merged with the LOTR in the mind as the one great tale that never ends, as Sam observed so perceptively and yet without the full perception that, say, Elrond, might have enjoyed. But the tale is full and deep for both Elrond and Sam, only in different ways. So I return to the tale, enriched by the Silmarillion, but still able to feel it as Sam does! smilies/smile.gif

Cheers,
Lyta

[Eurytus]

hmmm... very interesting. Apart from the fact that it is UT's The History of Galadriel and Celeborn [and behind that HoM-E XII's Shibboleth of Feanor] that reveal her as Feanor's equal you seem to be at odds with yourself on the 'multi-source reading shows the full character' issue.
Please check the title of the thread, the title of the thread is about psychological depth. Finding out about Galadriel’s ranking from other works has nothing to do with her psyche. Hence there is no contradiction at all.

[davem]

I think part of the problem is that many of Tolkien's characters are serving a kind of dual purpose. If we take Faramir, for instance. Faramir is not just an individual, with feelings & emotions, he is also a symbol.

Up to his appearance we've heard a lot about the 'Glory of Gondor' & the 'Wisdom of the Numenoreans', but what have we seen of Gondor? Boromir, & he is hardly an advert for the Glory or Wisdom of Gondor?

But then we meet Faramir - noble, wise, self sacrifycing - willing to see his beloved city go down in defeat rather than use the waepon of the Enemy. Faramir is a good man, trying to live up to the Numenorean ideal.

Up to meeting Faramir, we, & Frodo, have been made fully aware of what the West is fighting against. With Faramir we are presented with a living symbol of what they are fighting for.

Perhaps the character's psyches are a bit inaccessible for some readers because of this 'dual' function. For me, it adds depth, & makes the characters more, rather than less believable.

[mark12_30]

that reveal her as Feanor's equal

rank

Rank is only one part of it. Tolkien clearly loved Feanor despite all his faults, and even Gandalf held him in high regard; If she is Feanor's equal, or even close, then she is fiery, creative, ambitious and capable of leading a large group of elves off into war and destruction. And I think a careful consideration of Galadriel shows that that is so.

We may guess at that from her "All shall love me and despair" speech during her Ring-temptation, but everybody tempted by the Ring including Sam had grandiose ideas. Comparing her to Feanor makes her temptation truly awesome. Can we imagine Feanor with The One Ring? Galadriel would have been little different.

I think Galadriel's background adds tremendous depth.

Edit: Davem, very good point. I wonder how that extends to the elves; we seem to meet at least one token elf from each culture except Mithlond... Should we compare Haldir vs Legolas vs Glorfindel, or would the Rivendell equivalent be Lindir (who always annoyed me)? I'll vote for Glorfindel to represent Rivendell since we get to know him a little better. This is worth returning to; more later...

[ November 17, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[lindil]

Lost One: I do have an ancient and battered 'Master of Middle-Earth' which I have not read in ages. Time to dust it off...

Eurytus: As the tenor of the debate has been officially 'encouraged' to change, I will leave you with what I posted above. If my several posts [not too mention the other many other and better responses] do not succeed in pointing you in a new dirction re: Psychological depth, then alas, nothing else I can say will have much hope of doing it either. The same must be said for the Galadriel issue addressed above. If you do not see the intimate and to my mind indisoluable bond between character and that characters innate power then there is probably nothing I can do to explicate it. I want to apologize to you however for letting my personal reactions go beyond what is civilized or useful to conversation. That was unbecoming of any poster especially a mod.

Several others have also taken issue more or less with me on the 'multi-source to see the whole character issue'. I did not mean to imply that one could not read the LotR and not get 'the core' of it, clearly you can, and I am sure we all did, before ever opening up the posthumous books, but I do think much remains undeveloped or only hinted at in certain characters [Galadriel being an obvious one - Elrond's commitment to interacting with and councilling with all races is also put in much greater contrast after sdeeing the whole picture of oft re-curring Elven isolationism] and especially in certain preceeding/parallel themes [Ring and Silmarills], involvment of Valr/Istari etc. All of these while in many ways not directly 'character issues' come to inform our understanding of everyline the characters speak in the LotR.

So the LotR goes from [imo] deep and splendid when read alone, to far, far beyond what anyone else either has done or probably could do [given that JRRT's most unusual natural abilities with language combined with an extremely classical education and his personal experiences with War and, romance and Catholicism/Theology, when read in conjunction with the voluminous posthumous writings.


Dave M: your point re: Faramir is excellent, and to me it points to one of many subtle 'variables' continually in use by JRRT that I think accounts for the wonder and warmth of heart mixed with longing and sorrow that many readers feel is not to be found anywhere else in the realm of fiction or modern literature.

In a sense the characters serve as vehicles to see the world anew, just as Frodo feels the power of the Elven ring at work in Lorien. Pure [and truly white] magic for some of us.

[ November 17, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Eurytus]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that reveal her as Feanor's equal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rank
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rank is only one part of it. Tolkien clearly loved Feanor despite all his faults, and even Gandalf held him in high regard; If she is Feanor's equal, or even close, then she is fiery, creative, ambitious and capable of leading a large group of elves off into war and destruction. And I think a careful consideration of Galadriel shows that that is so.

Sorry but you are not debating the correct part of the post. The fact was that I had used the Silmarillion and Tolkien's mythology to suggest that Galadriel was likely to be the next being after Gandalf that Sauron would fear to claim the Ring.

Someone then tried to use this comment of mine to prove that I was being hypocritical in regards to when I stated that one should not have to read the rest of Tolkien's works to see the psychological depths to the characters in LOTR.

Since I was using Tolkien's other works to compare Galadriels power, standing (call it what you will) against Gandalf's it was incorrect of that person to label me a hypocrit. I had used Tolkien's other works to assess someone's power, not their psychological depth which is the title of this thread.

And I stand behind my earlier comment that any author worth his salt should not need to rely on unpublished works to enhance the psychological depth of the characters. Nor is psychological depth the same as backstory or history.
If you take the movie Jaws, we know and indeed learn very little about the history of the three men on the Orca (Quint maybe a little) and yet does in impair on our ability to see into their psyches? No, not in my view.

Psychological depth can be achieved relatively economically and does not need acres of history or backstory which is a very different thing.

[lindil]

This is excerpted from my recently edited above post in the light of Eurytus' reply. Please pardon the repetition, but I did not want it to get lost in an edit above.


--Eurytus: As the tenor of the debate has been officially 'encouraged' to change, I will leave you with what I posted above. If my several posts [not too mention the other many other and better responses] do not succeed in pointing you in a new dirction re: Psychological depth, then alas, nothing else I can say will have much hope of doing it either.

The same must be said for the Galadriel issue addressed above. If you do not see the intimate and to my mind indisoluable bond between character and that characters innate power then there is probably nothing I can do to explicate it.


I want to apologize to you however for letting my personal reactions go beyond what is civilized or useful to conversation. That was unbecoming of any poster especially a moderator, and the Downs has tried to pride itself on [and almost always succeeded in] warm-hearted discussions, despite any differences of opinion.

sincerely,
lindil

[ November 17, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Eurytus]

Lindil, something weird seems to be happening with the posting and I don't know if your first response to my latest answer to the Galadriel question was there before I answered. It did not appear to be but now is so I don't want it to appear as if I was rude and ignored your subsequent post.

However I have to say that I cannot agree with this;
The same must be said for the Galadriel issue addressed above. If you do not see the intimate and to my mind indisoluable bond between character and that characters innate power then there is probably nothing I can do to explicate it.

A character can be powerful but poorly defined with no psychological depth. Sauron after all is powerful and in LOTR you see absolutely nothing about him.
To a lesser extent Glorfindel too is portrayed as very powerful and again you do not get a good insight into his character in my view.

However we will doubtless not agree on this issue and it seems as if I am annoying everyone though it was not my intention so I will desist in this thread.

Well, ok, unless a point is made that really, really grabs me and I just have to answer it........

But otherwise...cheers,

[Aiwendil]

Eurytus wrote:
A character can be powerful but poorly defined with no psychological depth. Sauron after all is powerful and in LOTR you see absolutely nothing about him.
To a lesser extent Glorfindel too is portrayed as very powerful and again you do not get a good insight into his character in my view.

I think that what Lindil meant (if I may be so bold) is not that powerful characters automatically have psychological depth, but rather that the fact that the character is powerful is one of the pieces of characterization that goes toward establishing psychological depth.

[The Saucepan Man]

Some great replies and much food for thought. I have been meaning to come back and reply to some of the points that have been made for some time now, but I haven’t been able to set aside the time needed until now. Mind you, responding to posts on a topic like this is a bit like trying to catch a slippery eel. Just when you think that you have covered the points that have been made, someone goes and makes another post.

Before I start, however, let me echo Mister Underhill’s words and ask everyone to make sure that the discussion stays polite and even-tempered. People have differing opinions on issues like this, and I would ask that everyone respects those expressed by others. There is nothing wrong with courteous and well-reasoned argument but please, as Mister U says, avoid baiting, personal attacks, sarcasm, belittling the views of others etc. This is the first topic that I have been able to get past 10 or so posts, let alone on to a second page, and it seems to me that there’s plenty of life in it yet. So let’s not get it closed down, please.

First, I think it is worth thinking a little about what is meant by “psychological depth”. As I said, I have not read Pullman’s books and cannot say for sure what he meant by this. But, on the basis that the word “psychological” adds something to the phrase, I would guess that he is talking about something more specific than depth of characterisation. There are many aspects to the characterisation of characters in a story, ranging from their appearance, style of speech and actions, through to their background, their character traits and their inner thoughts and feelings. It is this latter aspect of characterisation, the “inner life” of a character, which I think Pullman was talking about (and this doesn’t have to involve turmoil, although those who are struggling inwardly will generally make psychologically more interesting characters and might therefore be described as having greater psychological depth).

The discussion on this thread has widened to take in other aspects of characterisation. For example, Aiwendil, I see much of what you used to illustrate Tolkien’s characterisations of Beren and Hurin as character traits, descriptions and actions. Similarly, the recent discussion initiated by lindil concerning whether the characters in LotR can be appreciated more deeply from reading the Silmarillion and other background materials, deals largely with the characters’ back stories, their histories, rather than their psychological make-up (Galadriel is an exception here, since I think that we do directly learn a lot more about her persona, as opposed to her power, from Unfinished Tales).

Now these other aspects of characterisation can tell us directly about the inner thoughts and the feelings of the characters, because (as Aiwendil has shown in relation to Beren) we can get a good idea of what they are feeling inside, what their motivations, their hopes and their fears are from the character traits that they are given, from their background and history and from their actions. But we rarely get direct access to Tolkien’s characters, and I think that this is what Pullman meant when he made that comment.

I very much like the extract quoted by littlemanpoet from Orson Scott Card’s book. I had not really given any thought to analysing books by reference to these four factors before, but they do make a lot of sense to me. And I would agree that LotR is primarily either a milieu story or (as Aiwendil argues) an event-driven story. Both of these aspects are to the fore in LotR. Characterisation is less so.

That of course is not to say that Tolkien does not develop his characters and that we cannot perceive any psychological depth in them at all. As I have said, Tolkien gives us very little direct access to his characters’ thoughts and feelings, and so, in most cases, we have to work out these out for ourselves from the actions of the characters, their background etc. In some cases, this leads to some very fine character development. As I said in my earlier post, I believe that Denethor and (to a lesser extent) Boromir both have substantial psychological depth to them, yet we never have access to their thoughts. And I agree with Estelyn that we can learn something of Aragorn’s “inner persona” from his outward actions and his interactions with characters like Eowyn, Merry and Ioreth. But there is less psychological depth here because, as I said earlier, noble characters who have no inner turmoil are less psychologically interesting than those who are struggling inside (note that does not necessarily make them less interesting characters, just less psychologically interesting).

While on the topic of Aragorn, I find the question of whether he is a believable character to be an interesting one. I agree with you, Aiwendil, that he need not necessarily be realistic in our real world terms as long as he is believable within the context of Middle-earth. but is a character like Aragorn truly believable in a world where there are also Men like Denethor, Boromir and Wormtongue? Perhaps Aragorn is believable on the basis that the story can handle one thoroughly noble, kind and valiant hero from the Race of Men. But what of Faramir? I have some sympathy for Eurytus’ point that Faramir is a character who is “too good to be true”, especially as we already have one such character in the story, one who is far more central. Certainly, in my view, there is less psychological depth to Faramir than there is to other characters in the same way that there is less psychological depth to Aragorn. Yes, Faramir struggles between his duty to his father/his country and his instinctive acceptance that Frodo is doing the right thing in taking the Ring to Mordor, but he hardly (in the book, at least) struggles for very long over this. To my mind, neither Aragorn nor Faramir is as psychologically interesting as Denethor or Boromir, and they are therefore psychologically less deep. That is not to say that they have less depth as characters (bearing in mind all the other aspects of characterisation that I mentioned). They are simply less psychologically deep.

There are, of course, characters whose thoughts we do have access to. Pullman mentioned Gollum, and clearly we do get a good idea of the struggle going on inside his head. The other characters (other than, rather strangely, a fox smilies/wink.gif ) whose thoughts we have access to are the Hobbits. Child of the 7th Age said:

I don't see how anyone could argue that we don't get inside Bilbo's head.

And I don’t either. Bilbo must be the character in Tolkien’s works that we learn most about through our direct access to his hopes, fears, thoughts and feelings. Although I wouldn’t necessarily say that Bilbo is psychologically deep (he is a children’s character after all), his character’s persona is well drawn. The same can be said, although to a lesser degree, of the Hobbits in LotR, particularly Sam. We do, at times have direct access to his thought process and this, combined with his traits, actions, background etc allow us to build up a very good picture of his persona. With Merry and Pippin, the insights into their thoughts and feelings are there too, albeit rarer, and so we rely more on their deeds, actions and interactions to build up our picture of them.

What I find strange is that the Hobbit who I think we learn least about, at least in terms of his “inner self”, is the one who is supposed to be the main “narrator” of the story: Frodo. We learn about his character, as with the others, through what he says and does, but only very rarely do we get glimpses of what is going on inside his head. We know that he is struggling with the Ring, but we see the struggle as if we were a bystander, like Sam. We do not see his thought patterns as the Ring tries to tempt him, as we do with Sam. To an extent, we are privy to Frodo’s feelings following the completion of the Quest, but this is only limited. We know that he is psychologically scarred by what he has gone through and that he can no longer remain in Middle-earth. But we do not really learn the extent of the damage from Frodo’s own thoughts. Rather, it is the very fact that he has to sail West that tells us just how badly damaged he is and how much he needs healing.

So I do see Frodo as the one Hobbit about whom we learn the least, and I find this rather curious given his central role both in the story and as the supposed author (or recorder) of much of it.

I feel, therefore, that Pullman does make a reasonably good point. Tolkien’s characters do have depth (of character) and, in some cases, they have psychological depth. Mostly we see this through external factors such as their backgrounds, actions and words (Denethor, Boromir, Frodo) and occasionally we see it directly through having access to their inner thoughts (Gollum, Bilbo, Sam, the fox smilies/biggrin.gif ). But, ultimately, I do think that Tolkien’s characters lack psychological depth, in comparison with other writers.

Now, as many have pointed out, that is not necessarily a criticism of Tolkien. Perhaps the word “lack” is slightly emotive, suggesting as it does that there is something lacking in Tolkien’s works. But, going back to littlemanpoet’s quote from the book by Orson Scott Card, it is fair to say that Tolkien was not writing a character driven novel. The fact that he does not imbue each of his characters with immense psychological depth cannot therefore be a failing, for that is not what he was setting out to achieve. Hilde Bracegirdle, Lush, and Evisse the Blue all make excellent points, therefore, when they say:

It doesn’t seem correct to speak on whether an approach is right or wrong, for a book should be judged on how effective it is, does the method employed work? (Hilde)

Was Tolkien good at creating psychologically believable characters? Personally, I'd say, not really.

But I didn't pick up the LotR expecting to find some fascinating Freudian parallel contained within Aragorn's relationship with his sword. (Lush)

I find it interesting that some of you feel like 'defending' Tolkien by arguing that his characters have as much depth as any. But by agreeing that Tolkien's strong point was not characterization, but creating a certain atmosphere, the milieu from littlemanpoet's quote - you don't undermine his quality of a writer. (Evisse)

Finally, I just want to touch on this issue of whether an understanding of the source material leads to a greater appreciation of LotR. And it seems to me that there can be no correct or incorrect way to read the book. Granted, someone who has read the Silmarillion and the Unfinished Tales will have a greater knowledge of the history of the world in which the story in LotR is set. They will even have a greater understanding of some of the characters (Galadriel, in particular, as I said earlier). But I do not think that you can judge objectively whether they will derive any greater pleasure from it than someone who has just picked up the book to read because they liked the films. Personally, since joining this forum, I have developed a much greater appreciation of Middle-earth, its peoples and its history. I had not even read the Silmarillion, before I joined. Now, when I read LotR, I can appreciate many of the details that passed me by before. But, for all that, I do not think that, however many times I now read it, I will ever recapture that sense of utter wonder and magic that I felt when I first read the book aged 11. In other words, even though there may be greater characterisation, and possibly even greater psychological depth, to be discovered in this source material, it does not follow that we have to seek it out before we can truly enjoy LotR.

[lindil]

I think that what Lindil meant (if I may be so bold) is not that powerful characters automatically have psychological depth, but rather that the fact that the character is powerful is one of the pieces of characterization that goes toward establishing psychological depth.

You may of course be so bold A., especially as you are so often able to express my thoughts better than I do smilies/rolleyes.gif].

This characterization of her power and personality is explicity what I was referring to as being fully developed for Galadriel outside of the Lord of the Rings.

In truth with Galadriel she only came into existence with the writing of LotR, so her backstory is a a sort of front story, nonetheless, she grew [immensely] and her words and deeds in the LotR come to have far greater depth and meaning as we learn it.

Depending on one's pov this can be experienced as frustrating or fascinating or a mixtute, or even ignored. Personally I find it one of the most realistic things about the Legendarium, even now 25 years after first reading LotR I am still understanding the same things not only more deeply, but in many cases far differently. Is all this essential to having a good grasp of the story? No. Is it for having a far greater experience of the plot and characters? I think so.

Eurytus, I do however have my limits as to how far I really wish to have to dig [read search out, cross reference, google and usually purchase] all of these stray bits of lore, and so I hope ultimately to a create a sort of 'one-stop Silmarillion', which will at least narrow things down abit.

[ November 17, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Aiwendil]

Saucepan Man:

You suggest that a distinction be made between "psychological depth" and "characterization". That's a matter of definition and, since all definitions are arbitrary, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

But one must follow it with the question: how useful or interesting is this definition?

If psychological depth is to be understood as something like the "internal characterization" I discussed earlier in the thread, then it seems quite correct to say "Tolkien's characters generally lack psychological depth". But I have two reservations about stating this and considering the whole business finished.

First of all, as you point out, this sounds like a criticism but need not be one. I agree with what you say here:

Now, as many have pointed out, that is not necessarily a criticism of Tolkien. Perhaps the word “lack” is slightly emotive, suggesting as it does that there is something lacking in Tolkien’s works. But, going back to littlemanpoet’s quote from the book by Orson Scott Card, it is fair to say that Tolkien was not writing a character driven novel. The fact that he does not imbue each of his characters with immense psychological depth cannot therefore be a failing, for that is not what he was setting out to achieve.

But I would add a slight complication to this. There are two distinct points here: first, the point from Card's book that some novels are plot-driven or milieu-driven rather than character-driven, and they are not flawed for being so; second, that if "psychological depth" is just one aspect of characterization, there is no reason to think that it is the most important aspect (in other words, some characterizations may be psychology-driven, others may be action-driven, etc.).

So, to sum up: it is first of all not correct to insist that all literature should be primarily concerned with character; it is also not correct to insist that all characterization be achieved by means of the internal method.

The second reason I hesitate to be satisfied with "Tolkien's characters generally lack psychological depth", even given the refined definition, is that I'm not sure to what extent the "psychological depth" aspect of characterization may be distinguished from other aspects. I agree with:

For example, Aiwendil, I see much of what you used to illustrate Tolkien’s characterisations of Beren and Hurin as character traits, descriptions and actions.

But what I was trying to show was that these characters have what I called "implied psychological depth". I think that this is related to "real" psychological depth in a very meaningful way. We are given certain information if we are shown Hurin's thoughts, emotions, and so forth. We are given certain other information (about his psychological state) if we are shown Hurin's actions. My claim is that these two pieces of information are the same in very many respects. In other words, I think that implied psychological depth achieves very nearly the same thing as direct psychological depth (not exactly the same thing, certainly). (And you say something along these lines in relation to my analysis of Beren).

Moreover, I think that readers do not sharply distinguish between the psychological aspect of characterization and the other aspects. To some extent, all of these things are tributary to the big picture: the character as a concept, as a perception on the part of the reader.

Perhaps I can make an analogy to psychology. One approach might be called behaviorist, focusing on the external actions of humans, and their reactions to external stimuli. In this kind of approach, terms like "anger" refer to patterns of external behavior, with no reference to the internal. A person is angry if they act in certain ways (like yelling, being rude, etc.). In what might be called the cognitive approach, the focus is on the internal. Here, "anger" refers to a certain neurological state, with no reference to the external. But of course in the end both approaches are talking about the same thing, just in different ways.

So is it really all that significant that we come to know Hurin primarily through his actions, while we (presumably) come to know Pullman's characters through direct inspection of their thoughts? The result is largely the same: we come to know the character. Of course, there are differences in the result - but I think that there are also very important similarities.

In some cases, of course, the very fact that the characterization is achieved by the internal technique is significant, most often in modern literature. For example, in Crime and Punishment the dichotomy between the internal and the external is of central importance. But this is a sophisticated way of wielding the internal technique, and a special case.

I agree with you, Aiwendil, that he need not necessarily be realistic in our real world terms as long as he is believable within the context of Middle-earth. but is a character like Aragorn truly believable in a world where there are also Men like Denethor, Boromir and Wormtongue?

I think so. One might just as well say "are Denethor, Boromir and Wormtongue believable in a world in which there are Aragorn, Faramir, Elrond, Galadriel . . .?"

It is a feature of Tolkien's world that there are really, unambiguously good people, really, unambiguously evil people, and people in between. One may well question whether this is true of the real world. But one cannot question whether it is true of Tolkien's world. That's simply the way it is. I don't know how to inquire any further into the question of whether this state of affairs is believable. Certainly it is not inconsistent with the rest of Tolkien's mythology. Certainly it is believable enough to have been used in other great literature (like the Aeneid or the Bible).

[Theron Bugtussle]

I suspect that political and religious viewpoints influence folks almost as much as modern vs classic viewpoints on the topic at hand.

My take on Victorian-era sensibilities and hypocrisies is that the culture valued or prized ideals that individuals could not always live up to, all of them being of a fallen race. However, because the ideals were prized, people identified with them and sought after them more openly, it would seem. Christian missionary work, the ending of the practice of black slavery, establishment of hospitals and all sorts of aid societies are perhaps good examples. That was a powerful era of British world influence, and not just political.

And today's society is more skeptical yet more utopian (an unreachable idealism, rather than practical idealism). So people think that an event like Band-Aid or such is actually doing something for someone, rather than just salving the musicians' and promoters' (and media members') consciences that they are so rich but have so little impact on good vs evil. And we think to ourselves, aren't we compassionate!

I conclude that one's worldview does indeed have much to say on how or if one will perceive the incredible depth of character in Tolkien's writings. (However poorly I may have expressed it.)

[Theron Bugtussle]

Congrats to Saucepan Man on a great thread. smilies/cool.gif The Saucepan Man: But there is less psychological depth here because, as I said earlier, noble characters who have no inner turmoil are less psychologically interesting than those who are struggling inside (note that does not necessarily make them less interesting characters, just less psychologically interesting).

...though it does get extremely tedious (or challenging) to follow the intricacies of a discussion like this! (I refer to the whole string of thoughts leading up to and including your quote....)

I find the strength of nobility and purpose, and the insight into others' thoughts and weakness, and the gentleness and humility of Aragorn, for example--as pointed out earlier by some contributors here--extremely
psychologically interesting, but not from a Freudian or other modern psychological standpoint.

I disagree with (perhaps my understanding of) your definition of psychological depth, if by it you mean a character has to wallow in temptation to sin, indecision, or some other angst in order that the reader find the character interesting, or to assure that the character be perceived as deep or having something of great value to contribute to today's reader.

[The Saucepan Man]

Aiwendil, it seems to me that there is little between us. But just to pick up on some of the points that you have made:

You suggest that a distinction be made between "psychological depth" and "characterization".

I think that a distinction must be made, since characterisation involves so much more than a character's psychological state. It includes such things as a character's appearance and attire. Tom Bomdadil, for example, is characterised by his beard, hat, blue coat and yellow boots. He is characterised in other ways too, but those are definately important aspects of his characterisation.

That's a matter of definition and, since all definitions are arbitrary, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

I wouldn't say arbitrary. The word "psychology" must be given a meaning. And it seems to me that the "psychological" aspects of a character must, taking a traditional definition of the word, equate to the internal workings of that character's mind. What are their inner thoughts, feelings, motivations, conflicts etc? So, a character who has "psychological depth" is one in whom these aspects of his or her character are richly drawn. And a character who lacks "psychological depth" need not be lacking in other forms of characterisation. We might be told volumes about their appearance, history and deeds, but very little about their inner thoughts.

But I agree that there will frequently be a degree of overlap. As you say, a character's inner thoughts can be implied from the other aspects of a his or her overall characterisation.

In Tolkiens' works, we do have some characters whose inner thoughts we are privy to. With others, we must rely on external aspects of their characterisation to draw conclusions about the inner workings of their minds. But, either way, I would still say that there are very few characters in Tolkien's works who have real psychological depth, by which I mean characters whose psychological make-up is richly drawn.

And that is most definately not a criticism. With LotR, the events portrayed are the main drivers and so we are told only what we need to know about the characters' internal thoughts, feelings, conflicts, struggles and motivations as is necessary for us to understand those events. And, when those events require us to have a greater understanding of a character's inner mind, that character is drawn with greater psychological depth. As I said in my previous post, I believe that it is internal conflicts and struggles which makes a character more psychologically interesting. And this, I believe, is why it is characters such as Gollum, Denethor and (when he takes the Ring) Sam, who end up being portrayed with greater psychological depth.

... how useful or interesting is this definition?

I think that it is both, for the way in which an author portrays his characters can give us a greater understanding of what he is trying to achieve. It is, to my mind, interesting to examine how an author uses characterisation to get across the story he is trying to tell.

Moreover, I think that readers do not sharply distinguish between the psychological aspect of characterization and the other aspects.

Maybe not consciously. But I think that the way in which an author chooses to use characteristion will affect the way in which the reader sees and reacts to those characters and it will therefore affect the reader's overall appreciation of the story.

It is a feature of Tolkien's world that there are really, unambiguously good people, really, unambiguously evil people, and people in between. One may well question whether this is true of the real world. But one cannot question whether it is true of Tolkien's world. That's simply the way it is.

Yes, I can see what you are saying. And I do agree. But I think that this only goes to reinforce my view that many of Tolkien's characters lack psychological depth. Characters who are unambiguously good or unambiguously evil will be less psychologically interesting than those who are more ambiguous in this regard, or who are flawed in some way. The wholly good/wholly evil characters may be interesting and richly characterised in other ways, and have important roles to play in the story, but they will lack any real psychological depth.

And this, I think, takes us back to the question of what the author is trying to acheive. One of the themes of Tolkien's work is the fight between good and evil. And so it is necessary that he has characters who represent the two extremes. Within that context, they are, as you say, believable, and so their lack of psychological depth does not represent any failure on Tolkien's part in terms of the story that he was trying to tell.

Edit: Thank you, Theron Bugtussle. And welcome to the thread. smilies/smile.gif Indeed, it certainly does require a measure of effort, and some investment of time, to keep up with all the ideas expressed on this thread. smilies/rolleyes.gif

I disagree with (perhaps my understanding of) your definition of psychological depth, if by it you mean a character has to wallow in temptation to sin, indecision, or some other angst in order that the reader find the character interesting, or to assure that the character be perceived as deep or having something of great value to contribute to today's reader.


I am most certainly not saying that the characters who lack any internal struggle are not interesting, or do not have something valuable to contribute to the story, and therefore the reader. I am simply saying that they are psychologically less interesting. We are less concerned with the workings of their mind and more concerned with their deeds. But, given that Tolkien was not setting out to write a psychological study, his characters do not need to be psychologically interesting. They are interesting in other ways. And so we can, of course, still find characters such as Aragorn and Faramir interesting, appreciate their importance to the story, and draw inspiration from them.

[ November 17, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Theron Bugtussle]

Re: How much external Tolkien reading is necessary to find satisfaction, understanding, or depth of characterization within LOTR...

I read LOTR first in about 7th-8th grade. Read the Hobbit for the first time probably after LOTR. Read it again once or twice before college. Once or maybe twice in college, probably only twice since then (in the last twenty-summa *coughs* years). I am reading it again right now.

I checked out the Silmarillion from the library long ago, couldn't choke it down, seemed too dry to me. (I was never one of those that loved memorizing names, dates, locations, and winning and losing commanding generals of the US Civil War, either.) And I have read no other Tolkien.

My opinion is I love the richness of characterization in the LOTR, I love everything about it. It has been my favorite book (short of the Bible) for...well, since I first read it. I don't see that I need to read any of the rest of that backstory, mythology, etc., to see the richness of these characters or the richness of the story.

And to the fellow who insists it is just a great adventure story: That may be right for you, but I think you might be missing what I see. I noticed the entire scene with the Black Riders under Weathertop takes up just over a page in the book. (Whereas in the movie it is a major action-adventure episode.) But the rest of the chapter leading up to that page has so much depth and texture. Strider has warned the hobbits they don't fear the Black Riders enough. This chapter fleshes that out, and gives the hobbits much to admire in Strider.

EDIT: In response to Saucepan Man's reply above about psychological interest, I see your point clearly now. And though I may still read the thread, I am less interested in specific psychological character issues, than in my (and others') general interest in the characters. I agree with you that the one area of interest does not rule out the other.

[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: Theron Bugtussle ]

[davem]

Perhaps there's more going on here - perhaps the real issue is how much we, as individuals, find in the characters.

I'm reminded of Tolkien's On Fairy Stories, where he talks about the way a storyteller & a reader/hearer 'co-create' the story. The reader supplies the imagery of the world as described by the hearer - a river will be 'the River' - a combination of every river the hearer has seen, but especially the first river to register on that individuals conciousness - same with 'the Hill', 'the Mountain', etc.

Perhaps the reason Tolkien's creation resonates so strongly with us is not because of what Tolkien gives us, as much as because we contribute to it.

To take Faramir, again. For me, he is a man trying to live up to an ideal, however painful it might be. He does struggle, but his struggle is not whether or not to take the Ring - he has abiding principles which will not allow him to do that. His struggle is to live up to his ideal - even at the cost of losing all he cares about. To say he would not take it, even if he found it lying by the wayside, & then to take those words as a vow, & be bound by them, doesn't imply a man who is simply too perfect to be believeable, but one who has decided what is right, & will, even if it destroys him & everything he loves, do it.

This is central to Tolkien's philosophy - we should do the right thing, simply because its right, not because it will gain us some kind of advantage - the end of that road is Saruman - he starts off wanting the 'right' side to win, but winning becomes so important in the end, that he only cares about that, & when it looks like the other side will be the winner, he simply changes sides.

Faramir knows what's right, morally, ethically, & he will do it - or die trying, because that's actually more important than achieving 'victory' in this world.

In other words, maybe I've supplied that interpretation of Faramir - maybe its not in the text (though I find it difficult to interpret him in any other way, but perhaps that's just me), but because I see Faramir in that way, he becomes more 'real' to me, a more moving & inspiring character.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Faramir knows what's right, morally, ethically, & he will do it - or die trying, because that's actually more important than achieving 'victory' in this world.
Excellent illustration, davem! I certainly agree with you about Faramir, and I think the test of this ideal within him (here's the psychological depth of Faramir or part of it, at least, drawn through internal struggle) arises when he is in Denethor's presence. He is obviously looking for approval from Denethor when he returns to Minas Tirith the first time in ROTK. He openly asks for approval of his actions and questions Denethor as to what he would have had him do. The struggle appears to be drawn in Faramir's desire to please his father and his knowledge that Gandalf's philosophy and views on the disposition of the Ring are in fact more in keeping with his own internalized moral code. To me, this is an external method of presenting what Aiwendil calls the "implied psychological depth" of the character without stopping to analyze it explicitly. It helps the pace of the story at this point, as the siege of Minas Tirith comes on quickly after Faramir's departure and beset return. It creates a palpable tension, as felt through Pippin's experience, between Denethor, his son, and Gandalf, suggesting not only a depth of struggle but also a history. It becomes obvious which way Faramir's inner thoughts and ideals are bent and also has the dual effect of resonating within Pippin, creating a tiny internal "Faramir" within Pippin, so to speak. (This ends up becoming manifest after the War too, with his heir being named after Faramir, but I digress...forgive me!). I hope I made an appropriate point, and I must say the discussion is quite an enjoyable one. My thanks to all involved! smilies/smile.gif

Cheers,
Lyta

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

I have always thought of Faramir as being resigned, with many internal struggles regarding Denethor. But he has a strong sense of duty to his father. Can't help but wonder if one reason he refused the ring is because he knew his father was in no shape to deal with it.

[The Saucepan Man]

Perhaps the reason Tolkien's creation resonates so strongly with us is not because of what Tolkien gives us, as much as because we contribute to it.

Good point, davem. One advantage of not being given a detailed analysis of a character's psychological make-up by the author is that we, the readers, can fill in the gaps ourselves. There is no scope to imagine what a character is feeling when we are given direct access to his or her thoughts. And, as you say, our imagination can be assisted in this regard by reference to the characters actions and interactions with others.

Faramir knows what's right, morally, ethically, & he will do it - or die trying, because that's actually more important than achieving 'victory' in this world.

In other words, maybe I've supplied that interpretation of Faramir - maybe its not in the text (though I find it difficult to interpret him in any other way, but perhaps that's just me), but because I see Faramir in that way, he becomes more 'real' to me, a more moving & inspiring character.

Don't get me wrong. I have much the same view as Faramir. The clues are there in the text. And I find him to be an inspiring character too. His conversation with Frodo at Henneth Annun includes some of my favourite passages in the book. I was simply saying that I did not see this as giving him any real psychological depth. But then I saw Lyta's post ...

I think the test of this ideal within him (here's the psychological depth of Faramir or part of it, at least, drawn through internal struggle) arises when he is in Denethor's presence ... The struggle appears to be drawn in Faramir's desire to please his father and his knowledge that Gandalf's philosophy and views on the disposition of the Ring are in fact more in keeping with his own internalized moral code.

... and was utterly persuaded. Excellent post, Lyta. smilies/smile.gif

[davem]

I think maybe part of the problem in finding depth in Tolkien's characters is that we don't really get exposed to the kind of struggle a lot of them go through - we're more used to the struggle of Boromir - 'Should I take & use the ring or not?'. There are characters who go through this kind of struggle, & we seem more convinced by them. But the other kind of struggle - Faramir's - of knowing what to do already, but struggling to find the inner strength to do it, is rarer these days, where moral absolutes are always questioned. We seem to think that once we know the right thing, we can just do it, no problem, because the real difficulty is in working out what the right thing is. Tolkien shows us that knowing the right thing to do is only the start - doing it is the struggle. This is Frodo's story, in essence - he knows he must destroy the Ring, his struggle is to do it. I think Faramir recognises a kindred spirit in Frodo, & so honours him. For Faramir to retain a sense of decency & respect for life, to retain his highest ideals, in the midst of a bloody war, which from his point of view at that time can only end in defeat is something that is both admirable & incredibly moving (and something Tolkien himself saw & struggled with personally, perhaps, in WW1). Faramir is 'fighting the Long Defeat', even though he knows that all he can hope for ('hope without guarantees', again) is 'defeat or fruitless victory', because evil will always arise again). But he still does it, because its right.

One of my greatest disappointments with the movie was the portrayal of Faramir - both sides seem too much alike, both, mentally at least, seem to be using the Ring already. It seems reduced to a battle between equally brutal & uncompromising sides, the only difference between them being the 'good' guys are better looking. We actually need a Faramir character, to see there is something worth fighting for, that Gondor is worthy of surviving. Faramir is just that - as I said, a living symbol of the survival of the highest Numenorean ideal. If Gondor can still produce men like Faramir, it is worth fighting & even dying for. I also think Frodo, in the state of hopelessness he has reached at that point, needs to see Faramir. He needs that inspiration. Like Merry, he has seen that there are things worth fighting for - he may not understand them at the time (though by the end I think he does) but he can know them & honour them.

[Eurytus]

Quite a few people on this thread have stated that we get all the psychological depth we need in Tolkien from the character’s actions. I cannot see how this can be the case.
If we take one of the examples used, that of Hurin, and look at one of the major “actions” he performs, that of slaying the 70 odd trolls.

What does this really tell us about his psychology? In reality it tells us nothing. We know what he did, we can only guess at the reason he did it.
Now he states that he has done it to guard Turgon’s retreat but is that the whole psychological reason for him to make that choice.

Why do people make self sacrificial choices? Do they do it because the gift of foresight tells them that Turgon will be the origin of the saving of Middle Earth? If that is the reason does it tell us anything much about the psychology of the person involved?
Would someone do it because they are consumed by bloodlust? Are they a naturally violent person? Are their selfish, perhaps arrogant reasons behind wanting to do it. Perhaps they want to be a hero. Perhaps they want to create feelings of guilt in those that survive.
There are a myriad of reasons that might make someone choose such a hopeless route. Some of which may be a construct of upbringing, some may be spur of the moment.
The fact that the reason we are given is that of foresight does not, in my view, increase our psychological awareness of this man.

Another thing that has been stated is a viewpoint to the effect of “why do we even need to get in their head in the first place?” The reason I would posit is because that is the most interesting place to be. Far more exciting to be inside the head of someone doing something amazing than just to be watching it. You effectively become the character.

Some examples, David Beckham scoring the World Cup winner. Neil Armstrong becomes the first man on the moon. The Beatles play Shea Stadium.

Now this are all exciting things. But what is the most interesting option? To watch these events or to be the World Cup winner, with all the attendant emotions that would follow? To be the first man on the moon, doing something that no man has ever done before, something that decades previously was a work of fiction. To play Shea Stadium with the biggest band in the world, surrounding by thousands and thousands of screaming fans?

Now I can’t speak for everybody but I know where I would rather be. Feeling is better than merely seeing.

Another issue with not getting inside someone’s head within a book is that you cannot truly know where that person is coming from. An example. In George RR Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire (which is a book that lets you inside the heads of the characters) the first couple of books are told predominantly from the viewpoint of the members of one family. From that perspective the actions of one of the other major characters makes them seem a truly evil and immoral person. Now if this person was to have their psychology defined by their actions as some here claim is acceptable, then that would be the analysis of their character. However in the later books this person is given a viewpoint. Now their actions do not change but the impression of the psyche that one gets is now totally different. Suddenly many of the actions seem reasonable or at the very least understandable from this person’s perspective. Now they are far more interesting a character for it, far removed from being a “stock baddie”.
This method therefore is far more effective for seeing the psychological depths of the character.

[mark12_30]

Faramir knows what's right, morally, ethically, & he will do it - or die trying, because that's actually more important than achieving 'victory' in this world.
Doing the right thing regardless of the consequences IS victory, real victory, lasting victory that transcends time. But don't we all wish it was easier? And is that which makes us resent Faramir when we are weak and easily swayed?
The struggle appears to be drawn in Faramir's desire to please his father
A devastatingly effective temptation, and I think a personally applicable concept for many readers.
Tolkien shows us that knowing the right thing to do is only the start - doing it is the struggle. This is Frodo's story, in essence - he knows he must destroy the Ring, his struggle is to do it.
Another personally applicable concept, as several threads in this forum have shown; when Frodo "fails" to destroy the thing of his own volition, our reaction to his failure is very telling.

To quote an old friend (lmp), this thread is deep, deep...

To rephrase several folks here, Tolkien "shows" us the character, rather than "telling" us the character (as lmp would say); actions rather than thoughts. To a modern reader I think this is often easier to swallow, especially when demonstrating virtue. I love good preaching, but few writers seem to pull it off in storytelling these days (George MacDonald had that gift, but it's rare, I think.) Modern authors who try to preach within a story only seem to annoy me even when I completely agree with what they are preaching about. But show me a character who shows me the truth via his actions, and I'm hooked. (And that does explain why I've been so hooked on so many of Tolkien's characters over the past thirty years!)

[ November 19, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Finwe]

mark, I agree with you, but I think that the true victory lies in overcoming the realization that your cause is hopeless and that you will probably die trying to fulfill it. I think that the greatest victory in Lord of the Rings wasn't the Battle of Pelennor Fields, or the Destruction of the Ring, rather, it was Sam's realization that he would go on to whatever end, even if it meant dying, to make sure that the Ring was destroyed and Sauron defeated. It was that last victory that made the book what it was, and made Sam the hero that he was.

[Aiwendil]

The Saucepan Man wrote:
Aiwendil, it seems to me that there is little between us.

Agreed.

I wouldn't say arbitrary.

I meant "all definitions are arbitrary" in the most logical, pedantic sense. Of course, some definitions are more practical than others, or more useful than others. And in this case I think that your definition is practical and to a great extent useful, as well. But I think that many times people can entrenched in pointless debates because what they are fundamentally differing over is the definition of some term - and there is no "right" definition.

Maybe not consciously. But I think that the way in which an author chooses to use characteristion will affect the way in which the reader sees and reacts to those characters and it will therefore affect the reader's overall appreciation of the story.

Yes, I agree. My point was simply that, in large part, the psychological method of characterization and whatever other method one might choose have the same goal, and the same result. These may not be exactly the same results; and there may also be secondary results that arise from one or the other method. But they can be, with some justification, lumped together in the category of "characterization", which is meaningfully distinct (though not disjoined) from plot, milieu, and so forth.

But I think that this only goes to reinforce my view that many of Tolkien's characters lack psychological depth. Characters who are unambiguously good or unambiguously evil will be less psychologically interesting than those who are more ambiguous in this regard, or who are flawed in some way.

I think we're hitting an area where the inexactness of the definitions is causing confusion. One could very well say that an unambiguously good character is psychologically deep because we see all that there is to see of his or her psyche - it just happens not to be very complicated. One could also say that an unambiguously good character is not psychologically deep because his or her psyche is simple and thus lacks depth. These things seem contradictory only because each employs a slightly different definitions for "psychologically deep".

Eurytus wrote:
If we take one of the examples used, that of Hurin, and look at one of the major “actions” he performs, that of slaying the 70 odd trolls. What does this really tell us about his psychology? In reality it tells us nothing. We know what he did, we can only guess at the reason he did it.


I think that perhaps you misunderstand the argument that a lot of people are making here.

I certainly do not think that the fact that Hurin kills 70 trolls (which, incidentally, may be a "fact" invented by Christopher Tolkien - but that matters little) means that he is psychologically deep. Indeed, I didn't even mention it when I sketched a brief analysis of Hurin's character:

Hadorians are typically tall and fair-haired, Hurin is fair-haired but short (the opposite of his son, who is tall but dark-haired). This means that while we can expect many of the associations of the House of Hador to apply to him, others will not. Chief, perhaps, is his steadfastness, which is more typical of the House of Beor. There is a great deal of interesting contrast with Morwen (a striking character herself). When Lalaith died, Morwen "met her grief in silence and coldness of heart. But Hurin mourned openly" (Narn i Chin Hurin, UT 64). Hurin's steadfastness is a complicated thing: in a sense he defies Morgoth to the end, refusing to betray Turgon. But in another sense he fails, for he is made bitter and grim, and he brings ruin to Brethil and to Doriath. It is fascinating to compare the Hurin of the first part of the Narn with the Hurin of "The Wanderings of Hurin".

Now this may not be psychological depth in the sense defined above by The Saucepan Man, but it certainly is characterization.

The fact that he fought valiantly to cover Turgon's retreat gives us just one piece of information about him: he is valiant. It hints at steadfastness, which is also seen elsewhere, and it hints at friendship or devotion to Turgon, which is also found elsewhere.

Would someone do it because they are consumed by bloodlust? Are they a naturally violent person? Are their selfish, perhaps arrogant reasons behind wanting to do it. Perhaps they want to be a hero. Perhaps they want to create feelings of guilt in those that survive.
There are a myriad of reasons that might make someone choose such a hopeless route.

Certainly. And if Tolkien had been writing a different book (indeed, a different kind of book) he might have given Hurin one of these motivations and explored it. But the point has been made several times that Tolkien's works are not primarily character studies. The point has also been made that it is an important feature of Tolkien's world that there really are people like Hurin who will valiantly fight just because it is the right thing to do.

Another thing that has been stated is a viewpoint to the effect of “why do we even need to get in their head in the first place?” The reason I would posit is because that is the most interesting place to be. Far more exciting to be inside the head of someone doing something amazing than just to be watching it. You effectively become the character.

You identify some of the benefits of the internal/psychological approach. No one has, as far as I recall, denied that there are such benefits. But there are benefits to the external approach as well: it is less likely to impede the plot; it allows us to come to know characters in the same way we come to know people in real life, it makes (though only through implication) the subtle argument that it is what we do that is important rather than what we think (the fact that the opposite point can also be made by taking the other approach in no way negates the validity of this one); in the particular case of Tolkien, it allowsfor an essential feature of his world - the existence of unambiguously good characters.

You cite an example of internal characterization from Martin. I cited one from Dostoevsky. Both are examples of the internal method being used in a very particular way to acheive a very particular result. I haven't read the book you mentioned, but I love Crime and Punishment. I think it uses the internal method extremely effectively. But I don't think that means that the internal method is the only valid method.

[The Saucepan Man]

Davem, as I have said, I agree with your description of Faramir's character as decent, noble and inspirational. But I would maintain that these aspects of his character do not by themselves give him psychological depth. If these characteristics were the sum total of his persona, he would be no more than a one-dimensional character, single-minded in his desire to do good. He might struggle to find the inner strength necessary to put his high-minded values into action, but that alone would not provide psychological depth, for it would in itself be a single-minded struggle.

Where Faramir's psycholgical depth lies (to my mind) is in the tension between these and other aspects of his character. Lyta, I think, has put her finger on this perfectly in identifying the tension between his noble values and the compulsion that he feels to do his duty to his father and his people and to earn his father's respect. As mark12_30 said, this is a struggle with which many readers will be able to identify.

I actually feel that film Faramir has more psychological depth, since the tension that Lyta has identified is brought out to a greater extent (and even more so in the extended edition of TTT). Admittedly, his nobility suffers as a result, since his desire to do his duty and earn his father's approval is initially dominant in this struggle, and so he is a different character from the one we know from the book. On the other hand, it looks as though film Denethor will be have less psychological depth than the book character, since it seems that his unsympathetic characteristics will be played up and that his own internal struggle will hardly, if at all, be touched on.

Eurytus, you said:

Quite a few people on this thread have stated that we get all the psychological depth we need in Tolkien from the character’s actions. I cannot see how this can be the case.

I am not by any means saying that this is the case with all of Tolkien's characters. Many of Tolkien's characters do, in my view, lack psychological depth since they are not required to have psychological depth for the purpose of the story. But there are characters whose actions and interactions do give them psychological depth.

As for Hurin, Aiwendil has pointed out that his actions do give us a measure of his personality. I would not say that he is particularly psychologically deep but, as Aiwendil said:

this may not be psychological depth in the sense defined ... by The Saucepan Man, but it certainly is characterization.

As for the relative merits of the internal and external methods of characterisation, I can do no better than agree with the points that Aiwendil has made. This really depends upon what kind of book you want to read. There is validity in both methods but, properly done, neither one is better than the other. They simply acheive different results.

Mark12_30, you said:

To rephrase several folks here, Tolkien "shows" us the character, rather than "telling" us the character (as lmp would say); actions rather than thoughts. To a modern reader I think this is often easier to swallow, especially when demonstrating virtue.

Actually, I would say that Tolkien "tells" us most of his characters, in the sense of portraying them largely by reference to their actions and interactions, rather than "showing" us them by giving us direct access to their inner thoughts. But I think that the point is still a valid one. A story told by reference to the inner thoughts and feelings of a worthy and high-minded character would probably be dreadfully dull, and almost certainly give the reader the feeling of being "preached" at. Whereas, when we are told of those noble values by reference to a character's heroic deeds, the story (if well-written) gains interest and the values portrayed become far more acceptable to the reader.

Aiwendil said much the same in describing the benefit of the external approach in the context of the story that Tolkien set out to tell:

... in the particular case of Tolkien, it allowsfor an essential feature of his world - the existence of unambiguously good characters.

I do still have one point of contention with you, though, Aiwendil:

One could very well say that an unambiguously good character is psychologically deep because we see all that there is to see of his or her psyche - it just happens not to be very complicated.

I do not think that a character can be said to have psychological depth when his or her psyche is not complicated. To my mind, it is only when there is some tension, or at least interplay, between aspects of a character's persona that he or she begins to gain psychological depth. So that is where I am coming from in formulating my definition of "psychological depth".

[Mister Underhill]

Great posts all around.

After reading Saucepan’s last, though, I wonder if it might not be worthwhile to make a distinction between psychological depth and psychological complexity. Saucepan’s definition of the former seems to require the latter, but if I’m reading you right, Sauce, I don’t agree.

I relate “depth” more with a certain profoundness or intensity, but not necessarily with complication. Which is not to say that a character cannot be both psychologically deep and complex, but I don’t think that depth proceeds naturally from complexity or vice versa. I’m pulling a bit of mental tongue-twister there, but perhaps I’m not entirely unclear.

Eurytus cited Melville’s Ahab as a psychologically deep character – but Ahab isn’t particularly complicated (nor is he, incidentally, drawn using the “internal” method). My intention is not to center the conversation around a particular character – other examples may be cited, I’m sure – but rather to ask whether depth and complexity are necessarily related.

For the record, I understand “show” versus “tell” in the same way that Helen uses it: when something comes out through monologue, including internal monologue, that’s telling the audience. When information or character is revealed through action, that’s showing the audience. Incidentally, I think the “show don’t tell” rule is a bit overworked by some writing instructors, but that’s neither here nor there.

EDITED to make my tongue-twister a bit more clear.

[ November 19, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

[The Saucepan Man]

After reading Saucepan’s last, though, I wonder if it might not be worthwhile to make a distinction between psychological depth and psychological complexity. Saucepan’s definition of the former seems to require the latter, but if I’m reading you right, Sauce, I don’t agree.

You are reading me right, Mister U, and I stand by my definition. A character may be profoundly noble, but I would not describe that character as psychologically deep. If a character's pscyhe has only one aspect (or a range of similar aspects) to it, then it cannot, to my mind, be deep, however intensely those aspects may be drawn. So yes, I would equate psychological depth with psychological complexity. And it seems to me that this was how Pullman was using the phrase in his quote which started this thread off, particularly as he cites Gollum as the one character who, in his view, does have psychological depth.

[Aiwendil]

The Saucepan Man wrote:
I do still have one point of contention with you, though, Aiwendil:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One could very well say that an unambiguously good character is psychologically deep because we see all that there is to see of his or her psyche - it just happens not to be very complicated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not think that a character can be said to have psychological depth when his or her psyche is not complicated. To my mind, it is only when there is some tension, or at least interplay, between aspects of a character's persona that he or she begins to gain psychological depth. So that is where I am coming from in formulating my definition of "psychological depth".


Actually, I think that this point of contention is an illusion.

You quoted only half of my essential point above. What I said was:
One could very well say that an unambiguously good character is psychologically deep because we see all that there is to see of his or her psyche - it just happens not to be very complicated. One could also say that an unambiguously good character is not psychologically deep because his or her psyche is simple and thus lacks depth. These things seem contradictory only because each employs a slightly different definitions for "psychologically deep".

In other words, given a particular definition of "psychologically deep", either of these statements could be true.

You chose the second definition, which, I think, is a perfectly good one.

[davem]

Saucepanman, Perhaps the problem is that in Faramir (the real one) we are seeing him after his struggle. His decision is made. The things he says reveal he is not someone who has just decided to be 'good'. He has thought through his position. The problem with the approach of the filmwriters is that they bring all the characters down to the level of Boromir - 'What should I do?'. Faramir, Aragorn, et al, have progressed beyond Boromir - probably if Boromir had survived, & passed the test he would have been the 'Faramir' we meet in Ithilien. I'm not saying the movie Faramir is not believeable - I don't think he's 'deeper' or more 'complex'. He's more like us. But he's not inspiring - well, not to me, anyway. I find his cowardlyness - the way he won't look while his men are beating up Gollum, holding his sword to the throat of an unarmed, frightened, exhausted prisoner - disconcerting in a 'good' character, to say the least.

In Tolkien's world we are presented with characters at different stages of development. Some are struggling to decide what's right, others are struggling to do what they have decided is the right thing. If we limit our definition of what constitutes depth to the former, then we simply miss the depth of the latter.

[Lush]

My take on Victorian-era sensibilities and hypocrisies is that the culture valued or prized ideals that individuals could not always live up to, all of them being of a fallen race. However, because the ideals were prized, people identified with them and sought after them more openly, it would seem. Christian missionary work, the ending of the practice of black slavery, establishment of hospitals and all sorts of aid societies are perhaps good examples. That was a powerful era of British world influence, and not just political.

I'm not out to demonize the Victorians or anything (lest I want the future generations to demonize me), but my original point was that they were not any better or worse than we are today; my discontent lies with the glorification of the good ol' days that simply never existed in human society (note I am placing a limit on my theory).

I conclude that one's worldview does indeed have much to say on how or if one will perceive the incredible depth of character in Tolkien's writings.

Can reading experience be constituted as part of my "world-view"?

I disagree with (perhaps my understanding of) your definition of psychological depth, if by it you mean a character has to wallow in temptation to sin, indecision, or some other angst in order that the reader find the character interesting, or to assure that the character be perceived as deep or having something of great value to contribute to today's reader.

Psychological depth isn't about how many heroin needles are sticking out of the character's skin, or something along those lines.

Psychological depth isn't about how dirty or debased or corrupt or bored or drunk a character is.

When I say that Tolkien's character's lack it, I am not implying that for me psychological depth involves having Aragorn battling an existential despair that gets triggered by acid flash-backs or Arwen finding herself confused by her feelings of lust for Glorfindel while her man is away.

I am implying that if Tolkien wanted to explore the human psyche in the LOTR, he wasn't entirely succesful, though his work is incredibly psychologically stimulating in of itself.

I find the strength of nobility and purpose, and the insight into others' thoughts and weakness, and the gentleness and humility of Aragorn, for example--as pointed out earlier by some contributors here--extremely
psychologically interesting, but not from a Freudian or other modern psychological standpoint.

In case you saw my early musings on Aragorn and his sword: My references to Freud were mostly meant as a joke (and, btw, Freudian ideas are no longer in the forefront of psychology: good Sigmund has got others carrying the torch for him these days...hopefully with more success smilies/wink.gif ). But I am curious to know what you mean by the word "modern" in the context of your last sentence.

[ November 20, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

[The Saucepan Man]

A few points to pick up on.

Here's one that I should have addressed in my previous post:

For the record, I understand “show” versus “tell” in the same way that Helen uses it: when something comes out through monologue, including internal monologue, that’s telling the audience. When information or character is revealed through action, that’s showing the audience.

Well, if that's the accepted view, I cannot really argue with it. It's not a concept that I am overly familiar with. My understanding was based on my natural reaction to the words. If an event happens and I am told about it, then I am not experiencing it directly, whereas, if I am shown it, I am. But, whatever the definition, I feel that the point that Helen (and Aiwendil) made still stands. A noble and worthy character is likely to be more appealing (and interesting) to readers if we are shown that nobility played out in their actions, rather than simply being told about their noble and worthy thoughts.

Actually, I think that this point of contention is an illusion.

Fair point, Aiwendil. I probably shouldn't have used the word "contention". My purpose was to try to illustrate the rationale for my definition of "psychological depth".

In Tolkien's world we are presented with characters at different stages of development. Some are struggling to decide what's right, others are struggling to do what they have decided is the right thing. If we limit our definition of what constitutes depth to the former, then we simply miss the depth of the latter.

But, davem, I don't see a character's efforts to implement a course of action that they have already decided on as a psychological struggle. It is more a struggle of action and interaction. And if we only meet them after they have gone through that internal struggle, then we are not really seeing their psychological depth. An alcoholic, although tragic, is far more psychologically interesting than a teetotal reformed alchoholic. smilies/wink.gif

Psychological depth isn't about how many heroin needles are sticking out of the character's skin, or something along those lines.

Psychological depth isn't about how dirty or debased or corrupt or bored or drunk a character is.


Yes, despite my flippant comment above, I largely agree with that, Lush. We might learn something about a character's psyche from external attributes such as these, but they only gain psychological depth when we see the internal factors that have produced, or are influencing, these attributes. So, the fact that Denethor sets fire to himself, and tries to do the same to his son, tells us something about his psyche. But, by "showing" ( smilies/wink.gif ) us the factors that have led him to that state, Tolkien fleshes out Denethor's psyche and we gain an impression of the internal struggle that he has gone through. And, were we to be given direct access to that internal struggle, we would gain an even greater understanding of his psyche.

I am implying that if Tolkien wanted to explore the human psyche in the LOTR, he wasn't entirely succesful, though his work is incredibly psychologically stimulating in of itself.

No arguments from me there. We don't necessarily need psychological depth for psychological stimulation. We can get this from seeing the actions of the characters, and the consequences of those actions, without necessarily learning a great deal about the complexities of their internal thoughts. As I said earlier, it really depends on what you want from a story.

[davem]

But, davem, I don't see a character's efforts to implement a course of action that they have already decided on as a psychological struggle. It is more a struggle of action and interaction. And if we only meet them after they have gone through that internal struggle, then we are not really seeing their psychological depth. An alcoholic, although tragic, is far more psychologically interesting than a teetotal reformed alchoholic.

I have to disagree. Frodo's struggle is at least half psychological from the start & becomes more pyschological as time goes on. The struggle is internal, against the Ring. As I say, I believe we don't appreciate this because we aren't exposed to it in most forms of modern storytelling. Personally, I find the ex-alcoholic's struggle to stay off the booze more moving than his struggle to decide whether he has a problem or not. Depicting psychological depth is not simply a matter of showing someone strugggling to make up their mind. I become more aware of the depth of characters like Frodo & Faramir as I get older, & go back to the book.

[The Saucepan Man]

Depicting psychological depth is not simply a matter of showing someone strugggling to make up their mind.

I am not saying that it is. Depiction of an internal struggle is only one means by which a writer can give a character psychological depth. I was using it as an example because it seems to me that this is the source of psychological complexity in most of Tolkien's characters. Frodo, Denethor, Faramir, Boromir and Gollum are all undergoing their own respective personal struggles. These struggles are relevant to the story that Tolkien wanted to tell, and so their psychological depth emerges as part of the story-telling process.

Of course, while a character's struggle continues, and we continue to be "shown" or "told" about it, that character will retain psychological depth. In that sense, the example of the alcholic and the reformed alcoholic was perhaps not the best illustration of my point (although, in my defence, I was trying to be flippant smilies/tongue.gif ).

I agree with you on Frodo. He clearly is undergoing an intense personal struggle against temptation throughout most of the book, and this does become more psychologically intense as the book progresses. I still think that it is strange, however, that, despite the fact that he is the central character, we never really get inside his head in the same way that we did with Bilbo. And we never really witness his own personal struggle with the Ring in the same way that we do with Sam (and even, to a degree, Galadriel). So, although Frodo's psychological struggle is interesting, it could, I think, have been portrayed with greater depth. Perhaps Tolkien wanted to leave the details of what was going on in Frodo's head to our imaginations. Any thoughts?

[ November 21, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Theron Bugtussle]

Lush,
First, my comments about "psychological depth" were to The Saucepan Man, and I quoted him. Your response was a little extreme (heroin needles, dirty, debased, acid flash-backs, and the like). But I took no offense smilies/wink.gif .

I was trying to say that I disagreed with Saucepan Man that only those characters who are most tempted or most indecisive have this depth. And I think that other contributors to this thread have made very salient points that analysis may reveal the depth that is there but is implied in Tolkien's treatment of characters like Aragorn and Faramir, who appear less tempted or indecisive.

In case you saw my early musings on Aragorn and his sword: My references to Freud were mostly meant as a joke (and, btw, Freudian ideas are no longer in the forefront of psychology: good Sigmund has got others carrying the torch for him these days...hopefully with more success ). But I am curious to know what you mean by the word "modern" in the context of your last sentence.I missed those musings, perhaps they were not in this thread. I am new to the forum, and it is a major undertaking to read--with some attempt at understanding smilies/smile.gif --even the few threads that I have. So I wasn't commenting on them.

It was another way of saying that I personally don't particularly need or enjoy an author's intimate examination of a character's psychological states and struggles to find depth. Maybe in LotR I am finding depth of character, not depth of psychology.

Anyway, my use of "modern" is not a technical term, but a way of saying modern writing styles that focus on the psychological treatment of the characters. So mentioning Freud was extraneous, perhaps just a slip. smilies/biggrin.gif

[Theron Bugtussle]

Lush:I'm not out to demonize the Victorians or anything (lest I want the future generations to demonize me), but my original point was that they were not any better or worse than we are today; my discontent lies with the glorification of the good ol' days that simply never existed in human society (note I am placing a limit on my theory).In my worldview (in the Christian vein), you are correct that men have the same fallen nature throughout history. I disagree, however, that the outworking of cultural and religious influences have not made "days" (or eras) that could be labeled as worse or better than today. Hence, my rebuttal of your Victorian hypocrisy reply.

Practically, the Victorians made major effect in change for the positive. Perhaps the literature you are reading from that era would give you a different picture. But authors fantasize. Else, 150 years from now, people might think our era was full of vampires and aliens, and our mythology ran toward people being batteries for a machine-world.

Likewise, human nature has been, and remains, a curious mixture of good and evil. We can easily label the 1930's and 40's as "dark days," because so many people gave in to the evils of fascism and totalitarianism. If not for the influence of Churchill, we might still be in those dark days--or worse. Yet, the evil influences of the era were not uniform, for the British people did stand, even alone, until the US woke to the crisis and joined the fray.

I think cultural and religious influences on the English speaking people (Britain and America) caused them to act completely differently than their counterparts on the European continent during that time. Though all possessed the same sinful nature.

[Child of the 7th Age]

So, although Frodo's psychological struggle is interesting, it could, I think, have been portrayed with greater depth. Perhaps Tolkien wanted to leave the details of what was going on in Frodo's head to our imaginations. Any thoughts?

Regarding Frodo... I have thought about this for some time, long before this thread went up. Tolkien's treatment of Sam and Frodo are so different in this regard that I do not think it could have been unintentional.

With Sam, we know exactly what he was thinking when he decided to leave his master and put on the ring. We even have glimpses into his dreams where he remembers swimming in the Shire and thinks wistfully of Rose. With Frodo, it is very different. A certain amount is revealed to us, but so much more is purposely hidden. We know little of Frodo's dreams other than those which point towards his future doom in sailing to the West. Just look at the masterful passage at the Council of Elrond where Frodo elected to take up the Ring. Something of Frodo's thoughts are revealed, but much more is purposely couched in mystery.

No one answered. The noon-bell rang. Still no one spoke. Frodo glanced at all the faces, but they were not turned to him. All the Council sat with downcast eyes as if in deep thought. A great dread fell on him, as if he was awaiting the pronouncement of some doom that he had long foreseen and vainly hoped might after all never be spoken. An overwhelming longing to rest and remain at peace by Bilbo's side in Rivendell filled all his heart. At last with an effort he spoke, and wondered to hear his own words, as if some other will was using his small voice.

"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."

If we study this passage closely, I think it gives us a hint as to why Tolkien did not let us see much inside Frodo's head. This is particularly true if we read this section in the light of a letter that Tolkien wrote to his son Christopher in 1944 while he was in the midst of writing:

Cert. Sam is the most closely drawn characer, the successor to Bilbo of the first book, the genuine hobbit. Frodo is not so interesting, because he has to be highminded, and has (as it were) a vocation. The book will prob. end up with Sam. Frodo will naturally become too ennobled and rarified by the achievement of the great Quest, and will pass West with all the great figures, but S. will settled down to the Shire and gardens and Inns.

Tolkien's approach to the two characters was different then. As a mortal man, Tolkien could understand gardens and Inns and get into the head of a character whose basic orientation is in the Shire. But Frodo is in a different situation altogether. He has become a part of high and serious matters. And Tolkien is a humble enough writer to acknowlege that some things were truly beyond his knowing.

Just look at the words Tolkien uses to describe what Frodo is thinking at the Council of Elrond. It is as if Frodo has one foot in the Shire and the other in lands and mysteries that go back to ancient times. Words like "doom" and "dread" are not ones easily applied to hobbits, or even to your average man. I can not imagine such terms referring to Sam or Merry or Pippin. Phrase such as these as well as the reference to a mysterious voice speaking through the hobbit suggest that Frodo has slipped over the edge of what is normal and commonplace, becoming part of the older tales as represented in the Silm.

Just what was that voice speaking through Frodo? Perhaps Manwe, or Eru, or simply the voice of doom...? I'm not sure that Tolkien even knew for sure, any more than he knew whether Frodo would find healing in the Blessed Lands. Frodo's character is steeped in mystery for precisely that reason. How could Tolkien have known what went on inside Frodo since the hobbit was fighting the ultimate evil. Such things are not for mortals to know so we can only catch brief glimpses of what is going on.

As Tolkien indicated in another of his letters, Frodo was presented with a situation that was beyond the ken of any mortal (and even beyond that of a maia like Gandalf!). There was no way that he could succeed. It is precisely in situations like these that the author discreetly draws down the silver veil of mist so that we are left with wonder and mystery. For the same reason, we come to the end of the tale and are granted only a tiny glimpse of the white shores and far green country of the West. No explanation or psychological reason is possible or even desirable in such situations. The everyday has been swept away with something much grander and more mysterious coming to take its place.

Most modern literature assumes that, if we could only get inside a character's head, we would understand their actions, why they act in a certain way. With Tolkien, it is different. Psychology and internal characterization take second place to preserving a sense of wonder and awe. Most moderns believe that psychology can be used to ferret out the truth. Tolkien was not blind to such things, but for him it was a side issue. The truth at the core of the universe lay in myth -- both the real and the subcreated. So when Frodo becomes caught up in an ancient myth, it is more important for us to sense that wonder, his place in the mythological framework, rather than to have all his individual actions and thoughts explained.

I think it's precisely for this reason than many readers have difficulty with the character of Frodo. They are used to characterization and internal struggles being spelled out in modern stories. These are the same folk who complain that Frodo didn't pull his weight, relied too heavily on Sam, or was a "failure" because of what happened on the slopes of Mount Doom. They simply fail to see a struggle that is depicted in mythological rather than psychological terms.

There is a second reason that may come into play here. At least in theory, Frodo is the one setting the tale down on paper after he returns from the Quest. We all know there are many problems with this framing device. Many folk would have had to confide to Frodo numerous details about what happened to them during the course of the War, and even Sam would have had to reveal his private musings, since Frodo could not have read his mind.

Still, we can not totally disregard the author's contention that the tale was set down on paper by Frodo in the Red Book. The lack of internal characterization would be a logical extension of this, since Frodo would not have been privy to others' private thoughts unless they had cared to reveal them. Even more critically, would a naturally reticent hobbit who was still engaged in an overwhelming spiritual and emotional struggle reveal everything that had gone on inside his head during the Quest? Obviously not. So this is a second reason that helps to explain why we are not privy to Frodo's personal reflections.

Either way we consider the issue, it is clear that much went on inside Frodo that is intentionally hidden from us.

[ November 22, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Lush]

Your response was a little extreme (heroin needles, dirty, debased, acid flash-backs, and the like). But I took no offense.

As you very well shouldn't, because my intent was, naturally, not to offend. Not that heroin needles are in themselves that gruesome (rather the purposes behind them). The things I've described above are common, and even tame, comparitively speaking (for better or for worse, naturally). And no, I wouldn't those sorts of themes to be part of the LOTR. That would be freakish, to say the least.

It was another way of saying that I personally don't particularly need or enjoy an author's intimate examination of a character's psychological states and struggles to find depth. Maybe in LotR I am finding depth of character, not depth of psychology.

Yeah. So as I predicted, this discussion is, at least in part, being re-focused on matters of taste. Which are useless to argue about. It's like asking someone why they like the colour blue and not pink, you know? smilies/wink.gif

Anyway, my use of "modern" is not a technical term, but a way of saying modern writing styles that focus on the psychological treatment of the characters. So mentioning Freud was extraneous, perhaps just a slip.

Ah, I see your point. I would argue that psychological treatment of characters is not necessarily a modern development (I mean, I think Sophocles was doing it back in the day...But I'll shut up about Sophocles before we bring Sigmund back for another round smilies/wink.gif ). But Tolkien was dancing to a whole other tune when he was writing the LOTR, and his interests, I believe, were in a different place. And it worked out nicely in the end, as we all know.

Practically, the Victorians made major effect in change for the positive. Perhaps the literature you are reading from that era would give you a different picture. But authors fantasize.

My opinion of Victorian hypocrisy stems from both historical and literary texts. Though I would add that every age is hypocritical in its own right, and dwelling on the short-comings of those who came before us is not in my taste anyway.

Yet, the evil influences of the era were not uniform, for the British people did stand, even alone, until the US woke to the crisis and joined the fray.

Totally off-topic here (my apologies to everyone involved), but unless I am mistaken, WWII was fought on two fronts: the western and the eastern front. And the US and Britain were not the only ones fighting against Nazi Germany at the time.

Well, that's it from me. Thank you, Saucy, for reminding me again of Denethor. Now that dude was complex.

[Bêthberry]

Might one member of the formerly British empire speak here, slightly off topic? I am very uncomfortable with some of what is suggested in this post.

Practically, the Victorians made major effect in change for the positive. Perhaps the literature you are reading from that era would give you a different picture. But authors fantasize. Else, 150 years from now, people might think our era was full of vampires and aliens, and our mythology ran toward people being batteries for a machine-world.

Likewise, human nature has been, and remains, a curious mixture of good and evil. We can easily label the 1930's and 40's as "dark days," because so many people gave in to the evils of fascism and totalitarianism. If not for the influence of Churchill, we might still be in those dark days--or worse. Yet, the evil influences of the era were not uniform, for the British people did stand, even alone, until the US woke to the crisis and joined the fray.

I think cultural and religious influences on the English speaking people (Britain and America) caused them to act completely differently than their counterparts on the European continent during that time. Though all possessed the same sinful nature.


Theron Bugtussle, with respect, I beg to differ. England did not stand alone. Not in World War I nor in World War II. Canada entered both wars from their beginning. In fact, it was a Canadian offensive which began the final 'Hundred Days' battle which led up to the Armistice on November 11, 1918. Were it not for the conveys across the Atlantic and Canadian support, England might well not have withstood until the US finally entered the fray.

And as for your suggestion that it was England and America which upheld the effort against fascism and totalitarianism, you might want to examine a little closer just how much support existed in the US for the fascist position. *coughs* The patriarch of the Kennedy clan being only one prominent name. You might also look at the role of resistance fighters throughout Europe before you claim religious superiority for John Bull and his successors.

There were, indeed, positive actions taken by people during the nineteenth century to work for the betterment of mankind. Yes, churches were in the forefront of the campaign to ban slavery throughout the British empire, which occured decades before the American Civil War. However, that did not stop British ships and captains from plying the slave trade even after the formal ban in the Empire. The history of English as well as European expansion into Africa is not one of the Western world's finest hours.

Nor, indeed, can the issue be referred only to literature. One need only look at several social issues to see that religion did not always in the Victorian Age mean moral superiority. The plight of chimney sweeps (poor working class children who were often left to die if they became trapped in the chimneys), the destitution of poor women, the effect of the enclosure laws, the Luddite Rebellion, the divorce laws, the creation of "asylums" for the insane (with their guided tours for the leisured classes)--one could name many areas where social reality left much to be desired.

For every example of human depravity in this age, someone can point to horrors of the past. Witch hunts, burnings at the stake, torture--all are complex issues with many different causes. I don't think any one country or any one religious sect can claim superiority. Historical issues are always, I think, very complex, more complex than general statements can perhaps allow and more complex than the scope of this topic allows. And, I would humbly suggest, this very issue of whether our age is a worse age than those which have preceeded us is itself determined largely by perspective and opinion.

But for my part I would humbly suggest that we consider the role of genre in any discussion of character. Is Lord of the Rings a novel? Or is it an heroic romance? Do the characters partake more of archetypes from mythology than of characters from the realm of realistic fiction? Should we expect realism (that is, depth or complexity) in their depiction?


Edit: My apologies, Saucy, for replying at length to a point very much tangential to your excellent thread. I must also say that I had not seen Lush's reply before posting my own.

[ November 21, 2003: Message edited by: Bêthberry ]

[Theron Bugtussle]

Bêthberry: I am very uncomfortable with some of what is suggested in this post.

1. I was not speaking of WWI era, since my comments were specific to the '30's and '40's.

2. The comment about Britain standing "even alone" was an allusion to Churchill's speech of June 4, 1940 to the House of Commons:

...we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. ...we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender...until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

3. My point is/was precisely that different people, both entire countries and different segments of people within a single country, reacted differently to the same dark time. I don't see that the point is invalidated. I am not downplaying Canada or another country's role if I note that France and other countries capitulated. Or that the German and Austrian people accepted Nazism with more or less open arms.

That there were large contingents within both US and Britain that wanted to stay out of the war is clear, I didn't say otherwise. Britain elected Chamberlain as PM and got "Peace in Their Time." (That is intended as a light-hearted reminder.) But thank God for Churchill! America needed to be convinced it was indeed "their" war, too, and eventually came around.

...before you claim religious superiority...

4. I don't know what attitude of "religious superiority" you refer to. But the WWII Allied forces "liberated" countries, then went home, except for defensive assistance to NATO. The Soviet Army "conquered" and swallowed countries into their system. That would be a clear difference in results produced by the outworking of the cultural and religious influences from these two 'sides.' Even though, as I said before, ...all possessed the same sinful nature.

5. I hope the moderators will forgive this side foray. I would like to get my reply back on topic.

Remember, I was originally trying to counter Eurytus countering Mark's argument from the first page in the thread. I do believe that my examples show that certain people or societies or even eras can and do have differing values, concepts they honor and pursue, though they may struggle, or even fail, in the attempt to achieve those aims.

[The Saucepan Man]

So as I predicted, this discussion is, at least in part, being re-focused on matters of taste. Which are useless to argue about.

Not just useless, Lush, but sometimes liable to provoke strong reactions. I thoroughly agree that we should steer clear from expressing our personal opinions on the relative merits of different writing styles.

What I am interested in doing here is exploring Tolkien's style of characterisation, and in particular the presence or absence of psychological depth within his characters. How does Tolkien use psychological depth to bring his characters to life and/or drive the story? Why are some (principal) characters imbued with psychological depth and not others? And why are we given access to the direct thoughts, feelings and internal struggles of some, but not others?

Child's post is an excellent example of just the kind of thing that I am looking for, and a highly enlightening response to the question that I posed concerning the difference in the (psychological) characterisations of Frodo and Sam. I think that you are right, Child, to mention Merry and Pippin in this regard too. Although we don't quite get into their heads to the same extent as we do with Sam, there are nevertheless instances where we get glimpses of their own internal approach to the events that they are witnessing. I have in mind here, in particular, their feelings of being on the edge of events (in Rohan and Gondor), which makes the central roles that they ultimately come to play in those events all the more striking. Like Sam, they are characters with whom the reader will find it much easlier to identify, much moreso than than Frodo, with his higher purpose.

This leads me to womder whether there is a link with mark 12_30's point about noble and worthy characters being much more appealing to the reader when they are characterised by reference to their external actions, rather than their internal thoughts. Perhaps, as you say Child, Tolkien was more inclined to give us glimpses of the minds of the likes of Sam, Merry and Pippin because their worldly attitude is so much easier for us to identify with than Frodo's other-worldly calling.

Bêthberry said:

But for my part I would humbly suggest that we consider the role of genre in any discussion of character. Is Lord of the Rings a novel? Or is it an heroic romance? Do the characters partake more of archetypes from mythology than of characters from the realm of realistic fiction? Should we expect realism (that is, depth or complexity) in their depiction?

These too are, I think, eminently suitable themes to explore in this thread. Certainly much more so than a discussion of relative moral values in societies throughout history or the differing national efforts in the struggle against fascism in the 1930s and 1940s. smilies/wink.gif Although your post was excellently expressed, Bêthberry, and suffice it to say that I agree with it in its entirety. smilies/smile.gif

Personally, I would describe LotR as a novel, but one which borrows heavily from the archetypes of mythology. And this, I think, is why many of Tolkien's characters are not drawn with great psychological depth. Heroic archetypes don't think, they do. We have our grounding in the Hobbits (with the exception of Frodo as the story develops, as Child has pointed out), as those are the characters that are (to my mind at least) the easiest for us to identify with. Personally, while I can admire the values displayed by the likes of Aragorn and Faramir, I find it far easier to identify with the likes of Sam, Merry and Pippin. Of the other characters, it is the Men who succumb to temptation or despair (Boromir, Eowyn and Denethor) who I think are easier to understand (whether personally or by reference to the society that we live in). And, funnily enough, they also seem to be characters who (to my mind) are drawn with greater psychological depth.

Edit: Or is it a chicken and egg situation? Do I see greater psychological depth in the likes of Sam and Boromir because I find them easier to identify with, or do I find it easer to identify with them because they have greater pscyhological depth? smilies/rolleyes.gif smilies/biggrin.gif

Edit 2: I'm fine with you having your right of reply, Theron, but from now on let's all stay on topic please. smilies/smile.gif

[ November 21, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

from now on let's all stay on topic please Yes, more Tolkien and less politics please...

[mark12_30]

Please pardon me while I wildly applaud Child's brilliant post... and add a brief postscript: If Frodo is comparable to a saint, one who transcends (whether by opportunity or sheer neccessity) then surely his writings would also be comparable; and I think they are.

Peruse an autobiography or a diary of the average saint, and they will claim that they are a great sinner, even while those around them vouch for their great holiness, piety, humility, and continuity of action with belief.

And (I find it fascinating) that the few times we really do "get inside Frodo", if only for a moment, are those moments when he encounteres Elven spirituality, or Goldberry's spirituality, often via song. By GOldberry's song, he feels "his heart moved with a joy that he did not understand". Arwen's glance and song "pierced his heart. He stood still enchanted..." And Galadriel's lament "did not comfort him. Yet... they remained graven in his memory..." And then of course there are the dreams. What we do see clearly in Frodo are his various supernatural experiences that prepare him for his quest.

And then we see his struggles, when the darkness looms.

I think this is similar to many writings of Catholic saints which tend to emphasize the contrast between experiences that deepened their faith, versus their struggles and weaknesses.

[Eurytus]

Practically, the Victorians made major effect in change for the positive. Perhaps the literature you are reading from that era would give you a different picture.
I would like to go off topic one more time if I may, given that the above quote was originally in answer to one of my posts.
I fully stand by my charge of hypocrisy towards the Victorian era and moreover address it to those who portray said era as a shining example to follow.

As Bethberry has already mentioned things were bad enough in the Victorian era if you were a resident of Britain. If you were poor or a Catholic then you could expect the harshest of treatment. Let us not forget that whilst Jack the Ripper was slaughtering prostitutes many of the upper classes did not express concern at their plight. No, in their eyes they had earned the “wages of sin”.

But things were even worse in the countries which the Victorians sought to “civilise” usually by slaughtering the population with high powered rifles. A look an the history of Indian or the African continent as a whole shows how honourable the Victorians were.

It is a sad fact that whenever a country becomes governed rigidly according to morals influenced by religion then tolerance and compassion go out the window.
In the Victorian’s case then I guess it is to be expected since they read a book that proclaimed that a woman who was raped in a city should be stoned to death as she could not have screamed loudly enough.

See Leviticus for details.

(If this post is too far off topic then I guess it can be deleted but since this thread has already run a pretty broad range of topics then I hope it can stay)

I would say that it could be that the absence of any strict religion in LOTR is one of the reasons it has attained such widespread popularity.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I would say that it could be that the absence of any strict religion in LOTR is one of the reasons it has attained such widespread popularity. *sigh* For the same reason, this discussion forum survives - because it sticks as closely as possible to Tolkien and stays away from religion, politics and sexual themes unless they're on-topic.

Recent posts on this thread have really gone as far off-topic as I'm going to let it get. This is the last one I'm allowing; I expect all future posts to explore other topics only as related to the theme of this thread.

A reminder to all - the Barrow-Downs was created by the Barrow-Wight as a forum for Tolkien discussions and it is his expressed intention to keep it that way. All other topics must be related to that major theme in order to be discussed here. The Saucepan Man has repeatedly attempted to get the discussion on this thread back to his initial topic; please honour his valiant attempt! Thanks!

[Bêthberry]

I would say that it could be that the absence of any strict religion in LOTR is one of the reasons it has attained such widespread popularity.


Eurytus, I'm sure this would make an interesting discussion on another thread, in terms of how a piece of creative writing attracts its audience, but I'm not sure what it has to do here with the topic of character development.

Saucepan, thanks for the nod about the question of genre. I think the presence of mythological archetypes brings another quality into the discussion of character besides depth and complexity, one which Child's excellent post and those of others talk about implicitly. This is change or the lack of it, stasis.

Most of the discussion here seems to concern male characters, although there was some initial consideration of Galadriel. I think that reading the female characters as archetypes helps us understand why only one of them in Lord of the Rings shows the kind of change like that we see in Frodo or Sam. I am speaking here of course of Eowyn. She is the only female character who is given the kind of conflict which leads to change externally.

The other female characters--Goldberry, Arwen, even (I am fearful saying this) Galadriel--function less in action and more as the traditional muse or inspiration. It is interesting that when Frodo has his intense reactions to both Goldberry and Arwen, we are not given any of their thoughts or dialogue except as they pertain to Frodo. (Goldberry replies, calling Frodo "elf-friend" while his vision of "her whom few mortals had yet seen" does not involve any interaction between them.)

Rather than saying Tolkien did not give his female characters depth or complexity, I wonder if a better way to read their static characterization is to see them as archetypal figures rather than novelistic characters.


EDIT: Sorry, Estelyn, we were cross posting and so I did not see your post until after I made mine.

[ November 22, 2003: Message edited by: Bêthberry ]

[mark12_30]

Bethberry, I'm intrigued, particularly about the seemingly limited interaction you mention between Frodo and the archetypal women. Could you expand on what you were driving at below? Thanks!
It is interesting that when Frodo has his intense reactions to both Goldberry and Arwen, we are not given any of their thoughts or dialogue except as they pertain to Frodo. (Goldberry replies, calling Frodo "elf-friend" while his vision of "her whom few mortals had yet seen" does not involve any interaction between them.)

Rather than saying Tolkien did not give his female characters depth or complexity, I wonder if a better way to read their static characterization is to see them as archetypal figures rather than novelistic characters.


Edit: Bethberry on rereading your post you say:
I am speaking here of course of Eowyn. She is the only female character who is given the kind of conflict which leads to change externally.


Interesting; don't you view Galadriel as changed by Frodo's achievements and his offer of the ring, nor had any inner conflict which changed her? Galadriel seems static because she is strong, but I think that's deceiving.

I guess I can ask the same question about Arwen; granted her greatest inner conflict doesn't come til after the quest is over and she's at Aragorn's deathbed.

I would agree Goldberry does seem untouched by change, as does Tom for that matter.

Anyway, please do expound on your theory of Frodo's relationships to archetypal women. Thanks!

[ November 22, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Mister Underhill]

I’ve been trying to take in this idea that most of Tolkien’s characters lack psychological depth and see if it really holds water, but after much contemplation it simply doesn’t ring true for me.

If we buy Pullman’s dismissive assertion that only Gollum has psychological depth, then we must accept that by implication the other characters in LotR are for the most part psychologically shallow, that their motivations are simple and uninteresting, that they lack resonance and relatability and applicability and most of all believability, that they are at best rather flat archetypes which represent themes or ideas rather than touch the reader as real characters.

But this simply isn’t the experience of a great many readers.

So if we’re trying to steer away from matters of taste and attempting to focus on a more objective analysis, we must rule out some blanket assertions that have been made in the thread which seem to derive from personal taste: that the psychology of noble and resolute characters is intrinsically less interesting than the psychology of characters torn by internal strife and conflict, or that the latter is necessarily deeper and more profound than the former; that the psychology of unambiguously good characters or evil characters is inherently less interesting than the psychology of characters who are morally ambiguous; that Tolkien was completely uninterested in what made his characters tick and was only concerned with writing a mythic/romantic adventure tale.

Although it was obviously not his sole or even primary concern in writing LotR, I think that Tolkien was deeply interested in the psychology of things like faith and temptation and heroism and leadership and friendship, and I think the depth of his insight into these themes is reflected in more of his characters than he’s being given credit for here. I think it is the great depth and profundity in his exploration of these themes – via the actions, interactions, and choices of his characters – which distinguishes his work and helps to account for its enduring appeal.

[mark12_30]

Mr. Underhill, I quite heartily agree. And yet it is the intersection of Child's post (regarding Frodo's supernatural depth as well as his character-depth, which are difficult if not impossible to separate anyway) and how that related with his deeper spiritual encounters: primary examples of which were encounters with Goldberry, Arwen, Galadriel. I am certainly not suggesting that Arwen and Galadriel are psychologically shallow (and I haven't given Goldberry much thought, but I doubt she is either). Yet, as archetypal figures they do have a very strong effect on Frodo's spirituality. So I am wondering if considering them as archetypes (in addition to strong characters) brings another light into our consideration of Frodo's character.

I think (at least in Galadriel and Arwen) Frodo participates in encounters with archetypal figures-- who nevertheless carry deep emotional conflicts of their own.

[Lush]

Underhillo and Helen:

It does seem peculiar that a work that had the power to move millions of people should be populated by characters that lack, according to great minds like Pullman, "psychological depth."

Why is it that some years ago, late at night with a single light burning, even a person like me had tears in her eyes as in my mind I was screaming at Sam to go on and choose wisely at the end of "The Two Towers"?

How is it possible for a reader to care so much about what happens in the LOTR, if some sort of psychological depth is missing?

Looking back on that night, I realize now that Tolkien's writing has the ability to put the reader inside the character; as I read "The Choices of Master Samwise," I was inhabiting Sam, I wasn't just rooting for him, I was also screaming at myself to go on.

Based on my late self-discovery in this matter, I would argue that the clarity with which Tolkien imagined his characters makes them psychologically inclusive.

Is what I'm describing another brand of depth?

Am I the only weirdo to have felt like this in this most interesting context?

Is Pullman still right? (I think he is, but, like Saucy pointed out, this could largely be one huge matter of taste)

Thoughts? Ideas? Complaints? Rotten vegetables to be tossed at my head?

[Lyta_Underhill]

Based on my late self-discovery in this matter, I would argue that the clarity with which Tolkien imagined his characters makes them psychologically inclusive.

Is what I'm describing another brand of depth?

Am I the only weirdo to have felt like this in this most interesting context? Not at all, Lush! Somewhere back a bit in this very thread, on the first page, I recount an instance of my own becoming and thinking as Frodo for a moment as he is watching the host of Minas Morgul marching West. Perhaps this is another brand of depth and does not require exposition but triggers that open up the reader's psyche to "fall into Middle Earth" completely. I remember somewhere on a Bombadil thread, there was a link to an article that posited that Tolkien speaks directly to the reader when Bombadil is addressing the hobbits, as if the reader is Bombadil on some level, and the story steps out of its fictional context to become an internal reality, rather than an analysis of it. Wish I could remember more about it! Great point though! smilies/smile.gif

Cheers,
Lyta

[Bêthberry]

Greetings All,

Lush, your recounting of your tears over Sam and Frodo in the dark of night reminded me of my own responses to Lord of the Rings. My first reading was a 'guilty read', done for my own pleasure undercover at night when I should have been studying European history, reading nineteenth century novels, analyzing medieval mystery plays and narrative--not bad companions to Tolkien, all said, really. My most recent cover-to-cover read was two years ago this November, by my mother's bedside in hospital as she underwent numerous painful tests and bodily intrusions, only, ultimately, to be told that her illness was incurable. Under those conditions, I was much more aware of death and loss in LOTR. I, too, felt every agony of Sam and Frodo on Mount Doom and of their final parting. And I cannot say how exquisitely moving was The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen in the Appendix.

(Well, if I say more I risk turning this into a Tolkienics-Anon confession.)

But to answer Helen's questions about my comments concering female archetypes and Mr. Underhill's masterful redefining post ...

Two points motivated my thoughts about my post. First, I have been thinking seriously about jallanite's claim on the Dumbing Down thread that LOTR is a heroic romance. Second, I have been considering whether Pullman's assertion of psychological depth is the only meaningful criterion about character. Are there other points which can create intriguing characters for us? It seems to me that we capitulate in part to his point of view if we accept that psychological depth is the only thing which makes characters interesting for us.

. . . then we must accept that by implication the other characters in LotR are for the most part psychologically shallow, that their motivations are simple and uninteresting, that they lack resonance and relatability and applicability and most of all believability, that they are at best rather flat archetypes which represent themes or ideas rather than touch the reader as real characters.

But this simply isn?t the experience of a great many readers.

. . . we must rule out some blanket assertions that have been made in the thread which seem to derive from personal taste: that the psychology of noble and resolute characters is intrinsically less interesting than the psychology of characters torn by internal strife and conflict, or that the latter is necessarily deeper and more profound than the former; that the psychology of unambiguously good characters or evil characters is inherently less interesting than the psychology of characters who are morally ambiguous; that Tolkien was completely uninterested in what made his characters tick and was only concerned with writing a mythic/romantic adventure tale.

Although it was obviously not his sole or even primary concern in writing LotR, I think that Tolkien was deeply interested in the psychology of things like faith and temptation and heroism and leadership and friendship, and I think the depth of his insight into these themes is reflected in more of his characters than he?s being given credit for here. I think it is the great depth and profundity in his exploration of these themes ? via the actions, interactions, and choices of his characters ? which distinguishes his work and helps to account for its enduring appeal.


I would reject the assumption here that 'flat archetypes' represent merely ideas and themes and cannot touch us as 'real characters.' In fact, I would argue the opposite, Mr. Underhill, that archetypes (I never used the word 'flat') can in fact touch us profoundly, perhaps even on a deeper level than characters with "depth and complexity" because the archetype can strike a resounding chord within us. The Trickster, The Crone, The Maiden, The Fool, and many others, can be as meaningful to us as any character from a realistic novel precisely because they seem to draw upon modes of feeling and being and understanding that defy contemporary rationalist thought. Neil Gaiman, to name another contemporary writer of fantasy, uses archetypes brilliantly and that has never seemed to be a complaint made about his work. Why should it be taken as a lessening of Tolkien that he uses archetypes?

I also think that Mr. Underhill's dichotomy (which he saw in this thread) between noble, resolute characters and strife-ridden characters, and between unambiguously good characters and evil characters, is a bit of a red herring. I suppose this has tended to be a standard arguement in art since John Milton apparently accidentally made his Satan more interesting than Adam and Eve in Paradise Lost. But I don't think it is the 'ideology' of the characters which is important. I've read evil characters who are plain, flatout boring to me. I've read good characters who are fascinating. The trick, it seems to me, lies in the telling of the tale, in how the character's perspective is dramatized within the tale.

We seem to have come up with several ways of 'characterising' characterization. We have mentioned depth, complexity, change. I would like to suggest a fourth criterion, that of mystery.

Characters intrigue us when we want to know more about them, when everything isn't given to us. We can then bring our own imaginations to bear upon them. This is another reason why I think archetypes can be so rewarding (to say nothing of how harrowing it is to follow Sam and Frodo). After all, which character here at the Barrow Downs seems to draw an endless number of threads? That enigma, Tom Bombadil.

When I pointed out that Goldberry, Arwen, and Galadriel are depicted more as archetypes and Eowyn more as a realistic character, I was not giving priority to the method of Eowyn's depiction, but trying to suggest that Tolkien's method as a writer is not limited to one particular way of telling a story. We don't have to accept Pullman's box to enjoy Tolkien.

And, as an aside to the question about morality, faith and religious themes in LOTR: Perhaps it is important to distinguish between religion as a formal authority and virtue as a personal experience or discovery. Tolkien was, after all, not only a monarchist and a Catholic, but an anarchist also.

[ November 23, 2003: Message edited by: Bêthberry ]

[Finwe]

I also think that there is something about the Trilogy that helps readers live with their grief. Yesterday night, I learned that my favorite cousin (who I loved as a brother) died in London. Let's just say that saying that I was devastated is an understatement. To help distract myself, and to keep myself from dwelling on that parting, I started reading LotR and then I realized that grieving over his death wouldn't accomplish anything except making me feel worse. Reading about the death of Theodred, the supposed death of Gandalf, the death of Boromir, etc. helped me take it in stride, and I think that is the true beauty of the trilogy and all the characters. The way that the Fellowship trudged on after Gandalf's death helped me, trudge on after my cousin's death.

[Orofaniel]

Finwe- I'm really sorry about your loss, you have my sympathies...

~*~

How is it possible for a reader to care so much about what happens in the LOTR, if some sort of psychological depth is missing?

Yes, I quite agree. There has to bee something about the story and the characters that make people love it. And not only that, but also feel that they have something in common with the characters. My point is, that if there were no thought behind the characters in LotR or other Tolkien' characters, I don't think that it would have come as far as movie making, action figure making, web site making etc. Books are often a hiding place for people, I think. At least it is for me sometimes. And when you've finished a book, you feel that you know the characters, it's almost as they are your friends. So if they had no psychological depth, I doubt that how can you then feel that. I think that every good book have characters with deep psychological. Because the book wouldn't be a "good book" without it, because we wouldn't be able to feel that we have something in common with the characters. But I think we must remember that a “good” book is different from person to person. Not everyone like LotR, maybe that’s because they don’t feel that they have anything in common with the characters? And if so, they think they have no psychological depth.

I think that Tolkien's character have a lot of psychological depth. The thing is that you have to read between the lines as one the previous posters on this thread said. I totally agree. I think that if you want to understand Tolkien's characters, and what history lies behind them, then you have to read between the lines. I have to admit that there are many of Tolkien's characters that are "unclear" to me, but I also think that maybe it is supposed to be like that. Maybe I feel that the character doesn't have that much psychological depth because I don't feel "one" with him/her. I doubt that everyone feel that they have something in common with ex. Frodo. Why is that? I think it's because each person as the characters have their own psychological depth.

And since there are so many characters I think it's even harder to sort out what really is behind.
Bêthberry wrote:
quote:

I've read evil characters who are plain, flatout boring to me. I've read good characters who are fascinating. The trick, it seems to me, lies in the telling of the tale, in how the character's perspective is dramatized within the tale.

I totally agree with you. I think that how the tale is told is a very important factor when it comes to how "deep" the character is.

We seem to have come up with several ways of 'characterising' characterization. We have mentioned depth, complexity, change. I would like to suggest a fourth criterion, that of mystery.

I would also like to say that I think the psychological depth has much to do with mystery. The psychological depth makes us curious I think. We are wondering what really is behind the character's actions/comments etc. Maybe each action has its own psychological depth, and that it doens't necessarily tell us all about the character's psychological depth. But of course, how the character acts tell us what the character thinks in that moment (I think so at least), but it doesn't mean he/she thinks that all the time.
Tom Bombadill is one of those characters. Is he an enigma? Is he a Maia? There are certain things that he does that would remind us of what he really is, but the thing is..:

'Even in a mythical age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally).' (JRR Tolkien, Letter #144)

So, Tolkien kind of leaves with nothing. But at the same time, he leaves us with the answer. We know that Tolkien made him a mystery for the readers intentionally. But what does this mean? That he has no psychological depth? I think it's the opposite. I think that there is a thin line between psychological depth and mysteries. Both of them make us curious. But then again, I said that psychological depth is "important" for us readers so that we can compare ourselves with the characters. So, if mystery is only a thin line away from psychological depth, does that mean that we can compare us selves with the mystery in the characters? The unknown things? But maybe there is a difference between psychological depth and mysteries. Psychological depth in a character, can be a mystery to us, which makes us curious what's behind it. So the psychological depth becomes a mystery within certain characters? Yeah, I think so. But I think that you can compare your self with characters that have "an open" psychological depth, but not characters that remain as mysteries.

So, maybe when Pullman said that he thought that Tolkien's characters didn't have any psychological depth, he didn't have anything in common with the characters, or (worse) he didn't read between the lines...... smilies/biggrin.gif smilies/smile.gif smilies/rolleyes.gif

I've probably repeated myself many times in this post, I just hope that someone understood my point..... smilies/tongue.gif

[ November 23, 2003: Message edited by: Orofaniel ]

[Lush]

I still think Pullman has a valid point; the sort of characterization that Tolkien employs relies heavily on the setting and the outside actions of the character to draw the reader in.

It is the reader's response to Sam, for example, that ultimately makes Sam come to life, I think.

Which is pretty cool, but does not negate Pullman's point completely.

[Finwe]

I think that Pullman had the right idea, but he was just a bit too close-minded about his idea. He didn't take into consideration that the setting/plot of Lord of the Rings made up for the "psychological deficiency" in the characters.

[The Saucepan Man]

I am speaking here of course of Eowyn. She is the only female character who is given the kind of conflict which leads to change externally.

Yes, Bêthberry, I would certainly agree that Eowyn has psychological depth, although we are not given direct access to her thoughts. We get to learn of her hopes and fears, and come to understand the motives behind her actions, from her interaction with other characters, most notably Aragorn, Faramir and (although less so) Theoden and Merry. We learn of her frustration at being trapped within the role to which she, as a woman, has been relegated. We see her attraction to Aragorn and her bitter disappointment at his refusal of her affections. And we can understand how these feelings, combined with the general hopelessness of the situation of her people (and the other free peoples), gives rise to the despair which leads her to ride to the Pellenor. In fact, the depiction of Eowyn's psychological make-up is quite startling in its depth now that I think about it. And yet it is largely driven by the needs of the story. It is precisely because she has been driven to a state of utter despair, akin to a "death-wish" in its intensity, that she is able to confront the Witch-King. It also provides a satisfacory resolution to her story, since we can see that, while Aragorn heals her physically, it is Faramir who is able to heal the psychological hurt that she has undergone.

As for the other principal female characters, I agree that they are more archetypal in their portrayal. They are not, to mind, depicted with any great psychological depth.

don't you view Galadriel as changed by Frodo's achievements and his offer of the ring, nor had any inner conflict which changed her? Galadriel seems static because she is strong, but I think that's deceiving.

Yes, Galadriel does undergo her own personal conflict when confronted by the Ring, but I do not feel that this tells us a great deal about her inner thoughts and feelings. Rather, it tells us more about the nature of the Ring. Yes, she is tempted by the power it offers and is able to resist that temptation. But there is not much indication of why she might have been tempted in the first place. Unfinished Tales fills in a good deal here, and gives us a much greater understanding of her internal character. But I am talking about her characterisation in LotR, which is principally as an archetypal priestess figure, offering healing, wisdom, guidance and assistance to the Fellowship (and to Frodo in particular).

If we buy Pullman’s dismissive assertion that only Gollum has psychological depth, then we must accept that by implication the other characters in LotR are for the most part psychologically shallow, that their motivations are simple and uninteresting, that they lack resonance and relatability and applicability and most of all believability, that they are at best rather flat archetypes which represent themes or ideas rather than touch the reader as real characters.


But I am not saying that characters have to be drawn with great psychological depth in order to be interesting or believable, Mister U. If that were the case, then there are a great many books that would not have the enduring appeal which they (like LotR) clearly have.

I detect a slight confusion on this thread between "psychological depth" and "depth of characterisation". Psychological depth is, as I have said previously, only one aspect of characterisation. There are many other methods of characterisation which can make a character believable, interesting and appealing (or unappealing as the case may be) to the reader. So, I don't feel that a lack of psychological depth in certain of Tolkien's characters necessarily represents any failing on his part or any flaw in his works. Nor does it make them any less inspirational in the good qualities that they show. It is simply that he did not, in my view, feel any great need to give his characters psychological depth, save where the needs of the story required it. Many of his characterisations are rich, but not necessarily so on a psychological level. As Lush said:

the sort of characterization that Tolkien employs relies heavily on the setting and the outside actions of the character to draw the reader in.

Mister Underhill, I think that you misunderstand the point that I am trying to make when you say:

we must rule out some blanket assertions that have been made in the thread which seem to derive from personal taste: that the psychology of noble and resolute characters is intrinsically less interesting than the psychology of characters torn by internal strife and conflict, or that the latter is necessarily deeper and more profound than the former; that the psychology of unambiguously good characters or evil characters is inherently less interesting than the psychology of characters who are morally ambiguous

I am most certainly not saying that nobility, heroism, faithfulness or any other of the many great qualities displayed by Tolkien's characters are less interesting or profound than the internal conflict or moral ambiguity displayed by others. I am simply saying that these qualities in themselves do not give the characters any great psychological depth. It is only when we see such qualities challenged by, or at odds with, the circumstances in which the characters find themselves and are given some idea of how they deal with the situation internally that we gain any real understanding of their psyche. To my mind, this never really happens to any great extent with Aragorn. On the other hand, we do see it happen in Sam and Faramir and, to a lesser degree, in Merry and Pippin. And, since I don't think that anyone would accuse these characters of moral ambiguity, this is certainly not an essential element of psychological depth.

I would reject the assumption here that 'flat archetypes' represent merely ideas and themes and cannot touch us as 'real characters.' In fact, I would argue the opposite, Mr. Underhill, that archetypes (I never used the word 'flat') can in fact touch us profoundly, perhaps even on a deeper level than characters with "depth and complexity" because the archetype can strike a resounding chord within us.

Quite right, Bêthberry. This illustrates precisely what I am trying to say. A character does not need psychological depth in order to have rich characterisation. Other elements within the characterisation can resonate with us and inspire us.

Characters intrigue us when we want to know more about them, when everything isn't given to us. We can then bring our own imaginations to bear upon them.

I also agree with you here, Bêthberry, and it is surely the case that some "gaps" are required in a character's psyche in order for us to do this. If a character's psychological make-up is carefully drawn in great detail, then there will be little scope for us to use our imagination to "fill in the gaps". So, a lack of psychological depth in a character allows us far more scope for using our imagination as readers and this, I think, is one of the factors in the enduring appeal of LotR.

Psychological depth in a character, can be a mystery to us, which makes us curious what's behind it. So the psychological depth becomes a mystery within certain characters? Yeah, I think so.

On the contrary, Orofaniel, mystery in a character, to me, indicates a certain lack of psychological depth. But, as I have said, that is not necessarily a bad thing.

How is it possible for a reader to care so much about what happens in the LOTR, if some sort of psychological depth is missing?

As I hope is clear from what I have said above, I do not feel that psychological depth is necesary to make us care about the characters and what happens to them. We do not necessarily need to know the inner workings of their minds in order for them to resonate with, and appeal to, us. And where we do need to learn more about what they are thinking in order for us to understand, and respond to, their plight, Tolkien provides this.

[Orofaniel]

Psychological depth in a character can be a mystery to us, which makes us curious what's behind it. So the psychological depth becomes a mystery within certain characters? Yeah, I think so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the contrary, Orofaniel, mystery in a character, to me, indicates a certain lack of psychological depth. But, as I have said, that is not necessarily a bad thing.


Maybe I was a bit unclear... smilies/biggrin.gif I think that the psychological depth, and the hunt for the readers to find it within certain characters, can be a mystery for us. But when I think about what you said, Saucy, I realised that it can be both ways. That's what I think.

As I hope is clear from what I have said above, I do not feel that psychological depth is necessary to make us care about the characters and what happens to them. We do not necessarily need to know the inner workings of their minds in order for them to resonate with, and appeal to, us. Wow...You don't think it’s necessary?

I would say that the psychological depth is a very important factor. I think they do have to have psychological depth so that we, the readers, will find the characters interesting. I think the psychological depth in the Tolkien's characters (and for that matter, other characters) is important also because we can compare ourselves with them. If they had no psychological depth, I don't think we could. And I also think we do care about them, just because they are deep, and much developed psychological, and the fact that we feel that we have something in common with the character(s).


Cheers,
Orofaniel smilies/smile.gif

[The Saucepan Man]

I think that the psychological depth, and the hunt for the readers to find it within certain characters, can be a mystery for us.

If you are talking about "implied psychological depth" in the sense that a character's psychological depth may be implied from his or her actions and interactions, then I agree with you. I think that Eowyn and Denethor are both good examples of characters whose psychological depth is implied by their deeds and by their dialogue with other characters. But, if you are talking about characters whose depth we have to fill in with our own imagination, then I disagree. How can a character, as written, have psychological depth if we have have to fill in the gaps ourselves? We may imbue them ourselves with psychological deoth, but that is a different matter.

I think they do have to have psychological depth so that we, the readers, will find the characters interesting.

No, there are a multitude of reasons why we might find characters interesting and care about them. Psychological depth is only one such reason. Heck, characters don't even need to have particularly great characterisation for us to care about them if they are important enough to the story or sufficently well integrated into it. I think that it would be difficult to argue that Legolas and Gimli are particularly well-developed characters, whether psychologically or otherwise. And yet you would presumably say that you cared about what happened to them. Why?

[Orofaniel]

No, there are a multitude of reasons why we might find characters interesting and care about them. Psychological depth is only one such reason. Yes, but it's a darn important reason, at least it is to me. I wouldn’t think a book was interesting or fascinating if it was full of characters with no psychological depth. I do think that it's different from person to person and what we emphasize. So, maybe we have totally different views on this one; you think that it isn’t that important, I however think it is. But I agree, there are many different reasons that we may find a character is interesting, the question is how important each of the factors are emphasized by us.

Heck, characters don't even need to have particularly great characterisation for us to care about them if they are important enough to the story or sufficiently well integrated into it. I think that it would be difficult to argue that Legolas and Gimli are particularly well-developed characters, whether psychologically or otherwise. And yet you would presumably say that you cared about what happened to them. Why? Yeah, I agree with you that the story has much to do with it. But I doubt that the story would be that good with characters that have none psychological depth at all.

I think Legolas and Gimli are that much developed that they make a good story. The story is good because of the people in it, and the relationship between the two of them. You ask why we would care about them afterwards; I think that could be different from person to person. You may not feel that you have anything in common with the two of them, others may though. So to discuss character's psychological depth will of course be understood differently from person to person. I, myself, think that the story about Gimli and Legolas has its own charm. They are two completely different people, but yet, they are on the same quest together; to destroy the ring, and protect Frodo. They become friends even though dwarves and elves don’t go well together. I think that says a lot about their psychological depth……

Cheers (again)
Orofaniel smilies/biggrin.gif

[ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: Orofaniel ]

[ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: Orofaniel ]

[The Saucepan Man]

I wouldn’t think a book was interesting or fascinating if it was full of characters with no psychological depth.

Well, since I presume that you find LotR to be an interesting and fascinating book, you and I clearly have different views on what is meant by "psychological depth". Your definition is akin, I think, to what I would describe as "characterisation". I have sought at length to describe on this thread what I mean by "psychological depth", based on what I believe Pullman meant by it in the quote that started this thread. I am not sure as I can, or ought, really to say much more in that regard.

[Eurytus]

I, myself, think that the story about Gimli and Legolas has its own charm. They are two completely different people, but yet, they are on the same quest together; to destroy the ring, and protect Frodo. They become friends even though dwarves and elves don’t go well together. I think that says a lot about their psychological depth……

Of course it is also the basic plotline for a million "odd couple" cop films, buddy movies......This ones short and fat, this ones skinny. This ones Mr confident, this ones Mr neurotic. This ones starchy and set in his ways, this one doesn't mind bending the rules to get his collar. And ad infinitum.

I guess you could therefore call it an archetype, though I don't remember them being deep.

[Mister Underhill]

Whoo – fast-moving thread. I’ll try to catch up.

Bêthberry, I’m certainly not discounting the value of archetypes – on the contrary. LotR is chock full of them. I certainly don’t think that describing a character in terms of an archetype precludes depth or complexity, and I agree that there is value in examining Tolkien’s use of archetypes, especially in relation to how he draws his characters. I think the best characters strum that resonant archetypal chord you mention, yet are individuated enough to become “real” for the reader. There is a fine line between archetype and cliché, and as you point out, execution is everything.

I think we’re really on the same page in most other respects. You’ve made an especially good point regarding mystery. The things that an author doesn’t tell us or only hints at can be as important as the things they do tell us. Tolkien was certainly aware of the power of mystery, and I think his skill in using this technique to suggest a wide world, a deep history, and rich lives beyond the borders of his story is one of his strongest talents as a writer.

Saucepan, there’s a lot going on here, but you’re already opting out of the conversation. I’ll try to address a few of your points anyway, and you can respond or not as you like.

I think I’ll address your last point first. We’ve made a lot of distinctions to discuss different aspects of characterization, but these distinctions are really artificial and break down if taken too far. Really, in a good characterization, everything flows from and speaks to a character’s psychology – what motivates him or her. Everything from his job, to the clothes he wears, to the attitudes he holds, to the things he values, to the things he says and does.

I think part of the problem here is that you’re trying to box your definition of “psychological depth” into a very narrow concept, one that I don’t think can be so neatly separated from other aspects of characterization. And I don’t think that’s what Pullman had in mind either.

Let’s take another look at the most telling part of his criticism: “...[LotR] doesn’t really say anything to me because the characters have no psychological depth. The only interesting character is Gollum.”

Pullman’s definition – and I think what most people conceive of when they think of psychological depth – is much broader than you’re suggesting. It speaks directly to how we relate to a character, whether they’re interesting or not, whether they have anything to say to us and whether or not they resonate with us. Pullman most certainly cites a lack of it as a failing and a flaw. Mister Underhill, I think that you misunderstand the point that I am trying to make Am I misreading you? I thought you were pretty clear in some of your previous posts: But there is less psychological depth here because, as I said earlier, noble characters who have no inner turmoil are less psychologically interesting than those who are struggling inside (note that does not necessarily make them less interesting characters, just less psychologically interesting).

As I said in my previous post, I believe that it is internal conflicts and struggles which makes a character more psychologically interesting.

Characters who are unambiguously good or unambiguously evil will be less psychologically interesting than those who are more ambiguous in this regard, or who are flawed in some way. The wholly good/wholly evil characters may be interesting and richly characterised in other ways, and have important roles to play in the story, but they will lack any real psychological depth. I understand that you’re trying to confine your comments here strictly to a character’s psychology – yet I still think these are matters of taste and, as noted by Bêthberry, execution.

I think important characters must be drawn with psychological depth to be interesting to the extent that they must come across as believable, “real” characters, ones whose motivations and struggles we can understand and empathize with (as so ably described by Lush, Lyta, and Bb above) and not wooden pawns that the author shuffles around according to the needs of his plot. In a good story, there is interplay between the events of the story and the motivations and behaviors of the characters. Each feeds on and is informed by the other.

In a more general sense, I’d also challenge the idea of putting too much emphasis on Card’s “types” of stories (milieu, character, idea, and event). I think he’s off-base when he classifies LotR as a story that’s primarily concerned with “milieu”. Maybe the idea needs more explanation, but who writes stories that are primarily concerned with milieu besides Michener? Also, note that he emphasizes that all four elements are present in any story to some extent. You can’t just say that a story of 500,000 words is “event-driven” and leave it at that.

Regarding the characters and relationship of Gimli and Legolas – some may see no more depth than is present in a run-of-the-mill buddy flick, others (myself included) may find satisfyingly deep themes of friendship, loyalty, honor, chivalry, and more there. This is another matter of taste.

Hmm... I could say more, but this post is already stretching to epic length. I’ll leave off for now and let others respond.

[ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

[Aiwendil]

Eurytus wrote:
Of course it is also the basic plotline for a million "odd couple" cop films, buddy movies......This ones short and fat, this ones skinny. This ones Mr confident, this ones Mr neurotic. This ones starchy and set in his ways, this one doesn't mind bending the rules to get his collar. And ad infinitum.

Since when did the popularity of a device make that device bad?

Sure, the "friendship between opposites" thing has been used a lot, and (like anything that is used so often) it has often been used poorly.

A lot of popular songs use string ensembles, and in about 95% of these cases the result is schmaltzy, over-sentimental, and generally disgusting. Does that make "Yesterday" or "Eleanor Rigby" bad? Does it make genuine string quartets bad?

As a matter of fact, I think that the popularity of the device seen in the friendship between Legolas and Gimli stems largely from the fact that it is an effective device. Alas, such easily recognizable and easily implemented devices are often used as a desparate measure by poor writers. But that does not diminish the effectiveness of the technique itself.

Is it "psychologically deep"? That depends entirely on one's definition of "psychologically deep".

Mister Underhill wrote:
I think part of the problem here is that you’re trying to box your definition of “psychological depth” into a very narrow concept, one that I don’t think can be so neatly separated from other aspects of characterization.

This is what I was trying to get at before. You can certainly define psychological depth in any way you like, but you must then ask how useful that definition is. I think that a much more interesting concept than psychological depth (as defined by The Saucepan Man) is characterization.

Of course, you can analyze psychological depth as a technique used in characterization. This is perfectly valid and, I think, very interesting. But you must then face the difficulty that there is no clear line between this aspect of characterization and others.

I think he’s off-base when he classifies LotR as a story that’s primarily concerned with “milieu”.

I quite agree. There are, I think, stories in which the milieu is at least as central as the plot (for example, Lewis's Out of the Silent Planet or More's Utopia - if you can call that a story). But LotR seems to me to be primarily about things that happen - that is to say, plot.

Also, note that he emphasizes that all four elements are present in any story to some extent. You can’t just say that a story of 500,000 words is “event-driven” and leave it at that.

Yes. But I think that the important thing to take away from Card's distinction is that we ought not to judge a story based solely on one of these criteria - and, moreover, no one of these is universally more important than the others. I think that modernists have a tendency to think that characterization ought to be, universally, the most important aspect of the book and part of their general dislike for LotR arises simply because it does not treat characterization as the most important element.

[The Saucepan Man]

Saucepan, there’s a lot going on here, but you’re already opting out of the conversation.

Well, it's more that I don't want this thread to be wholly taken up by my attempts to explain my understanding of "psychological depth", Mister Underhill. smilies/rolleyes.gif smilies/wink.gif

But, you have succeeded in provoking me to expound further. smilies/evil.gif smilies/biggrin.gif

I will start by agreeing with you. It really comes down to how you define the term.

Really, in a good characterization, everything flows from and speaks to a character’s psychology – what motivates him or her. Everything from his job, to the clothes he wears, to the attitudes he holds, to the things he values, to the things he says and does.

You seem to equate "psychological depth" with "characterisation", whereas I see it as just one aspect of characterisation, along with the other factors that you have listed. Knowing a character's job or being told of their appearance will assist in giving us an idea of their character, but they will not, in themselves, give the character any psychological depth. Just as an understanding of a character's psychology will not, in itself, necessarily tell us anything about their job or what they look like.

I think part of the problem here is that you’re trying to box your definition of “psychological depth” into a very narrow concept, one that I don’t think can be so neatly separated from other aspects of characterization. And I don’t think that’s what Pullman had in mind either.

Well, I agree that psychological depth cannot be neatly separated from other aspects of characterisation. It is the interplay between all of these aspects that gives us the complete character. But I do see psychological depth as just one factor in this fluid concept of "character". And I do think that is how Pullman sees it too. I find it difficult to believe that he would have described LotR as a book lacking in "psychological depth" if, by that expression, he simply meant "characterisation". To me he is saying that he wants to get into the minds of the characters, and that he doesn't get this sense from LotR.

I agree that he sees this as a failing of Tolkien's works. That is where opinion comes into it. I happen to disagree with him on two counts. First, as I have indicated in my previous posts, I think that we do get into the minds of a number of characters in Tolkien's works, whether by being given direct access to their thoughts or by being given an understanding of their internal reactions from their external actions and reactions, and their dialogue with other characters. And, secondly, where the characters do lack psychological depth (in the sense that I am talking about) I do not see this as a failing, because, in these instances, it is not necessary from the perspective of the story for us to get into their minds.

You have quoted an excerpt from an earlier post where I said that characters who lack internal struggle or who are unambiguously good will be less psychologically interesting. What I am really saying is that, if we simply see a character's actions and gain no understanding of what is driving those actions, there can be no psychological interest in that character. They will have no psychological depth (in the sense that I understand the term). The more we gain an understanding of their psyche, the more psychologically interesting they become. Neither inner turmoil nor moral ambiguity is necessary to give a character psychological depth but, where factors such as these are present, then I believe that there will be greater psychological depth, and therefore the character will be more interesting from a psychological standpoint. But, rather than being a matter of taste, I think that the difference between us is in our respective definitions of "psychological depth".

I think important characters must be drawn with psychological depth to be interesting to the extent that they must come across as believable, “real” characters, ones whose motivations and struggles we can understand and empathize with

Again, the issue here is one definition. On my understanding of the expression, characters can be interesting, believable and accessible (in terms of empathising with them) without necessarily having any great psychological depth. As I said earlier, I find that I identify more with those characters in whom I do find psychological depth, although that, perhaps, is a matter of taste.

You can certainly define psychological depth in any way you like, but you must then ask how useful that definition is. I think that a much more interesting concept than psychological depth (as defined by The Saucepan Man) is characterization.

Actually, Aiwendil, I agree with you. My purpose in starting this thread was to explore whether Tolkien's characters do have "psychological depth" in the sense that I understand Pullman to have been using the expression. And, if so, which ones and what techniques Tolkien uses to give them that depth. But I am happy for the thread to broaden out into a discussion of characterisation in the wider sense.

Of course, you can analyze psychological depth as a technique used in characterization. This is perfectly valid and, I think, very interesting. But you must then face the difficulty that there is no clear line between this aspect of characterization and others.

Again, I agree. I wholly accept that there will be a blurring between different aspects of characterisation.

Ultimately, I suspect that this debate on terms of reference is unlikely to take us much further. But I see no reason why the discussion of "psychological depth" in Tolkien's characters should not continue on the basis of whatever definition people may choose to apply to that term. That, in itself, may assist us in gaining a greater understanding of what the term entails. And, if this means that the discussion broadens out into an analysis of characterisation on a more general level, then that is fine by me.

[Lord of Angmar]

The term "psychological depth" seems to me to be simply the extent to which the reader can understand the thought processes of the characters and relate to the characters on an individual basis. Characterization is the process of building and explaining the persona or disposition of a character for the purpose of the story, in which case neither psychological depth nor characterization is a substratum of the other. Characterization seems to me to deal with advancement of the plot whereas creating psychological depth in writing is a means of making the reader care about the advancement of the plot. In this case, I would say (from my own rather biased perspective) that Tolkien succeeded in his efforts to create pyschological depth. Certainly he does not delve deep into the psyches of each individual character, but such is not to be expected (nor necessarily desired) in epic writing.

What he does do is provide the reader with an often subtle and often blatant advancement of the motivations and emotions of his characters. Take Aragorn for example. He is indeed left mostly uncharacterized throughout the whole of Book One, but nevertheless through his actions in defense of the hobbits and through his overall persona we are given an ambiguous look at his disposition, personality and psyche. His own inner turmoil is brought to light by Boromir's words at the Council of Elrond. When Boromir openly questions Aragorn's ability to wield Narsil reforged, we see Aragorn's lack of assuredness at his own preparedness to do so, giving us the groundwork for the plight that Aragorn faces. In "The Ring Goes South" in the Fellowship of the Ring, there is a particularly moving although subtle hint at the doubt and anxiety that Aragorn will face on his pending journey:

Aragorn sat with his head bowed to his knees; only Elrond knew fully what this hour meant to him.

Given the furthering of his characterization in Rivendell (the revelation that he is in fact the heir of Isildur and that he will journey with the Fellowship at least until Minas Tirith) gives psychological depth to the above quote. Throughout the rest of his journey, the amazing burden that rests on his shoulders is made clearer. When Gandalf falls, he must lead the Fellowship, and it is clear he is entirely uncertain in his mind what to do after Lothlorien. It is also clear that the decision is tormenting him, and the fact that he puts off the decision to the last possible moment (where it is basically made for him by the coming of the Uruk-hai and the flight of Sam and Frodo) adds psychological depth to his character in that it illustrates his reluctance to make large decisions and his anxiety when faced with such decisions.

After Helm's Deep, when he reveals himself to Sauron via the Palantir and decides on his own to venture the Paths of the Dead to reach Gondor, his character grows in depth, as once again it is illustrated how deeply he is burdened with the task of getting to Gondor and, ultimately, defeating Sauron. This scene also advances the psychological depth of Aragorn in that it shows him growing as a person, being able to face a number of choices and willfully make a decision.

In the final stage of his physical and psychological journey, he is at first uncertain, coming to Minas Tirith but fighting on its flanks instead of claiming command over it. However, he becomes quickly decisive after the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, understanding the many variables of the War and coming to the conclusion that he should march with a host to Mordor, there to divert Sauron's attention away from Frodo and Sam and give the two hobbits a final chance in their quest of utmost importance. By now the reader is emotionally attached to the journey of Aragorn (at least I was, and still am upon re-reading the books). When he becomes King, the reader feels a connection with him, and a sense of fulfillment and pride in the fulfillment of his quest.

Of course, this is just my take on this character, and of course many of you may not agree with my definitions of psychological depth and characterization. I believe that the two coincide and depend upon each other, and in the case of Aragorn and many of the other characters, I felt that through characterization, through advancement of the plot and through subtle or obvious hints about the mind states and thought processes, there was a real sense of psychological depth achieved in the characters of Professor Tolkien's works.

Cheers,
Angmar

[Eurytus]

As a matter of fact, I think that the popularity of the device seen in the friendship between Legolas and Gimli stems largely from the fact that it is an effective device. Alas, such easily recognizable and easily implemented devices are often used as a desparate measure by poor writers. But that does not diminish the effectiveness of the technique itself.
I quite agree with the last sentence. Where we differ is that I think I have seen made for TV movies with 'odd-buddy relationships' that have more characterisation that Legolas & Gimli.

Hell, I may even have seen Chuck Norris movies with deeper and better characterisation!

[Lyta_Underhill]

The idea I am getting from this discussion is that part of the analysis of "psychological depth" of certain characters or in general under consideration is really Tolkien's ability to create a believable conflict and then to resolve that conflict believably and neatly within a larger framework, i.e., his story is crafted with several levels of internal logic that the individual characters fit into without seeming contrived.

Lord of Angmar's case in point with Aragorn made me think of it this way. The facts are presented slowly, and we see the conflict of Aragorn's character through his position in the story. This conflict is drawn in the exposition, an external conflict--his history and his goal. Tolkien shows, by observation of Aragorn's small actions and suggestion, the internalization of his attempts to realize this goal under circumstance that test him sorely and the struggle is shown in the delay in making the choice. The fact that some of his choices are made for him speaks to a certain serendipitous quality in Tolkien's writings that I do not equate with coincidence but some do. The fact that Frodo's departure is so well foreshadowed but still a surprise and an unlooked-for aid to Aragorn's decision is merely an external method of resolving Aragorn's inner conflict. His is pushed onto his path. I don't see that as making his understood internal conflict any less deep; indeed it takes on a sort of tragic note, as Aragorn is, in his spirit, still torn in two, and his path remains unclear.

I think this conflict/resolution idea may serve to draw implied psychological depth through the imparting of the knowledge of the conflict and the struggle to resolve it in the reader's mind. There is no way I could have felt the depth of internal conflict (well, despair, really) at the sight of the Morgul-Host if the scenes between Frodo and Faramir had not drawn the situation so keenly in my mind--the conflict, already known from Frodo and Sam's POV, now amplified through Faramir and the Rangers of the South. The conflict is tied together, the connection between Frodo and Faramir is drawn as that of two soldiers, both marching to what appears to be certain doom, but march they must.

I hope this post makes sense and illustrates my point adequately. Thanks again for your indulgence!

Cheers,
Lyta

[Aiwendil]

Where we differ is that I think I have seen made for TV movies with 'odd-buddy relationships' that have more characterisation that Legolas & Gimli.

Actually, I quite agree with you.

Where we still differ (I think) is in this: I tink that the buddy movies you refer to typically rest wholly upon the "odd friendship" relationship. If this is to be the whole point of the story, then it must be really well done. It is most often not. Also, such movies typically suffer from other problems - like poor writing, poor direction, etc.

Now in The Lord of the Rings the odd friendship motive is about as far from being the center of the story as it could be. It is not as well developed because it does not need to be. Tolkien doesn't pick up a single, commonly used device and base the whole book on it.

To me it seems that criticizing the Legolas-Gimli relationship for not being more fully explored is rather like criticizing a movement from a Mozart symphony for not having a long enough development section. Yes, for some - like Haydn or Beethoven - the development is of central importance and much of the strength of the movement lies therein. For Mozart it is simply a technique used to pass from exposition to recapitulation. And in that capacity, it works perfectly.

This is also where I think it's useful to bear in mind Card's point. Those buddy movies are surely character-driven. So it's not unjustified to demand that they really deliver on the characterization. But Tolkien's works have a lot more to offer than a single "odd couple" type relationship.

[The Saucepan Man]

Lord of Angmar, you analysis of Aragorn and the mental journey that he undergoes in LotR certainly shows that there is a psychological element to his characterisation. But then this is true of virtually all characters in any novel. All characters exist on a psychological level to some degree or other.

Aragorn has psychological depth in the sense that there is some depth to his psychology. But does it make him psychologically deep? My view is that it does not. Sure, he is troubled by uncertainty and overcomes this, becoming mentally stronger. This mental development is necessary for the purposes of the story, since he needs to become the strong, self-assured figure that he we see regaining his throne at the end. But I don't see that we really gain any great understanding of his psyche in all this. We see the development of one aspect of it, but that, to my mind, does not make him a psychologically deep character.

I realise that I am straying back into the dangerous area of differing definitions here. But, if we are seeking to determine whether Aragorn is a character who is distinguishable by reason of his psychological depth, which I think is what Pullman was getting at in saying that Tolkien's characters lack psychological depth, then I do not think that we can say that he is. He is no more psychologically developed than a great many other characters in a great many other novels.

If, on the other hand, we are simply seeking to identify the psychological aspects of Aragorn's character (which is worthy in itself, but not I think what Pullman had in mind), then your analysis is an excellent one. smilies/smile.gif

Much the same goes for Legolas and Gimli, save that I see them as being far less psychologically developed, even than Aragorn. I agree with what you say, Aiwendil. The relationship between these two characters is a nice little story, but it is tangential to the main plot. It links in with the theme of friendship, but it is not central to that theme. And so, their characters are developed only to the extent than they need to be. As you say, that is not a criticism. But I find it difficult to see how they can be said to be particularly well-developed characters, let alone ones with any great degree of psychological depth.

[Lord of Angmar]

I agree with most of the content of your post, Saucepan Man. I do feel, though, that Mr. Pullman's own critique of Professor Tolkien is rather flawed (if Pullman's aforementioned remarks are to be taken as criticisms of Tolkien's work). That is not to say that the characters in Professor Tolkien's novels are the quintessential psychologically "deep" characters, but it is to say that they should not necessarily be so. Professor Tolkien did not approach the novel as a venture into the human psyche, but rather as a grandiose epic, and having thus approached it, it is rather unfair for a critic to approach it from an entirely different angle in his criticism. An epic is designed to take its reader on an expansive journey, and although it is the part of the writer to make readers care about the characters and their endeavours in his writing, it is not necessarily the epic writer's part to indulge in deeper psychoanalysis or to delve into the internal fastnesses of his characters' ids and egos. That does not seem to me to be the reason for epic writing. Having said, that, I have no problem with Mr. Pullman's claim that Professor Tolkien's epic lacks "depth" of psychology. I simply see it as a general statement rather than a pointed criticism.

[The Saucepan Man]

I thoroughly agree, Lord of Angmar. As Lush said the very forst page of this thread:

I mean, it shouldn't matter if Aragorn will never be as psychologically deep as King Lear.

As I have indicated previously, I personally feel that some of Tolkien's characters are developed psychologically to a greater extent than Pullman gives them credit for. But the fact that others are not is not, as I see it, a ground for criticism, since Tolkien was not seeking to write that kind of novel. As I said back on page two:

Now, as many have pointed out, that is not necessarily a criticism of Tolkien. Perhaps the word “lack” is slightly emotive, suggesting as it does that there is something lacking in Tolkien’s works. But, going back to littlemanpoet’s quote from the book by Orson Scott Card, it is fair to say that Tolkien was not writing a character driven novel. The fact that he does not imbue each of his characters with immense psychological depth cannot therefore be a failing, for that is not what he was setting out to achieve.

Although, to be fair to Pullman, I don't, on reflection, think that he was levelling a general criticism at LotR. I think that he was simply saying that there is insufficient psychological depth in the characters for his taste. Which is a perfectly valid comment to make.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I really don't see that the quotation from which this thread is derived really tells us enough about Pullman's opinion to admit a detailed examination of it. Every so often a thread begins that is based on a quotation from a newspaper, and each time it is mentioned at least once that journalists thrive on controversy, and will do whatever they can to get interviewees to say something juicy. I think that the problem with defining what is meant here by 'depth' is that we have no exposition of Pullman's opinion (as is only to be expected, since Tolkien was probably only mentioned because Pullman writes fantasy). He could mean almost anything by 'psychological depth': he might be talking about an absence of psychological detail, or he might be suggesting that Tolkien's characters are cardboard cut-outs that are pushed around the chess-board of his novel with little regard to how any of the story affects them. The problem with his statement is that it does not come from a considered argument but a fairly casual conversation. Pullman would probably have been much more careful to define his terms had he been attempting to present his opinion for debate, because without that detailed definition we cannot see what he really means.

Even when we ourselves talk about depth, we seem unsure of what we mean. Although I see unexplored depths implied in many of the characters who have been put forward as 'paper-thin', I am not looking for exhaustive detail and exploration when I look for depth. For me the author just has to show that there is more to the character than what appears on the surface. Detailed journeys through a character's mind are inappropriate in a work of very wide physical or temporal scope unless one wants to write the sort of book more suited to weightlifting than reading. I try to imagine The Lord of the Rings with long stream-of-consciousness passages à la Virginia Woolfe and I see twelve or more volumes, in which the story is constantly derailed by unnecessary exposition.

In any case, exposition was not Tolkien's way. What moved him in literature is well demonstrated by his comments on Beowulf in his introduction to the revised Clark-Hall translation: The poet who spoke these words saw in his thought the brave men of old walking under the vault of heaven upon the island earth beleaguered by the Shoreless Seas and the outer darkness, enduring with stern courage the brief days of life , until the hour of fate when all things should perish, leoht and lif samod. But he did not say all this fully or explicitly. And therein lies the unrecapturable magic of ancient English verse for those who have ears to hear: profound feeling, and poignant vision, filled with the beauty and mortality of the world, are aroused by brief phrases, light touches, short words resounding like harp-strings sharply plucked.What Tolkien admired in Old-English verse was what he saw as its ability to achieve through hint and nuance an impression of depths left purposefully unexplored by its author. The real question is the extent to which he succeeded in his attempt to emulate it. We must ask not whether there is detailed exploration of characters' thoughts and motivations, but whether we can infer from what he tells us that there is more to them than appears on the surface. It is my opinion that he does succeed, and that his approach to characterisation is the same as his approach to historical detail: he thought through what each of his main characters would be like and then revealed what he needed to reveal for the purposes of telling his story. For me, an explicit journey into Aragorn's head would be like Elrond going into a detailed description of Túrin's nature and deeds when he mentions him at the end of The Council of Elrond. Why bother, Tolkien appears to think, when one can show the reader what they need to know to understand the character as the narrative unfolds?

Consider the following passages: Strider sighed and paused before he spoke again. 'That is a song,' he said, 'in the mode that is called ann thennath among the Elves, but it is hard to render in our Common Speech, and this is but a rough echo of it. It tells of the meeting of Beren son of Barahir and Lúthien Tinúviel. Beren was a mortal man, but Lúthien was the daughter of Thingol, a King of Elves upon Middle-earth when the world was young; and she was the fairest maiden that has ever been among all the children of this world. As the stars upon the mists of the Northern Lands was her loveliness, and in her face was a shining light.

As Strider was speaking they watched his strange eager face, dimly lit in the red glow of the wood-fire. His eyes shone and his voice was rich and deep.

In a dark moment, Aragorn sees the need for a story that will raise the spirits of his companions; and what passage is it that he quotes but the meeting of Beren and Lúthien? We have not yet met Arwen in the narrative, and Tolkien is purposefully keeping her relationship with Strider a secret. He could not refer to her using internal methods without spoiling the surprise, but later we find that Aragorn's first words to Arwen were those of Beren to Lúthien; that she was the living image of Tinúviel, and that her father, too is a great lord among the Elves. This speaks volumes for Aragorn's eager face and shining eyes. It explains perfectly why he has chosen this of all poems to recite to his companions; but we do not know this at the time. There is something more than just an appreciation of Elven literature in the scene, but we do not know what it is until we see Aragorn with Arwen later. An internal passage would draw the reader's attention from the reaction of the hobbits and reveal that which the author does not want to reveal; but with this method we can look back later and see that the meeting of Beren and Lúthien has a deep significance for Aragorn. We are in the same position as the hobbits who are our arbiters with the world of Middle-earth: we can sense that there is something more to the scene than meets the eye, but there is an air of mystery about it. If Aragorn were emotionally or psychologically shallow there would be nothing to see. He would simply be demonstrating his own knowledge of poetry at a singularly inappropriate moment. As it is, his quotation is a window on his soul.

To return to the example of Húrin raised above, Eurytus is quite right to tell us that the fact that Húrin kills seventy trolls tells us nothing about him other than that he was fairly handy with an axe. This argument, however, fails utterly to address the matter of the circumstances and more specifically Húrin's choice of words as he fights (those factors that are actually relevant to a discussion of characterisation). In the Silmarillion we are told, firstly, the counsel of war between the leading survivors as the battle turns to disaster.

Then Húrin spoke to Turgon, saying: 'Go now, lord, while time is! For in you lives the last hope of the Eldar, and while Gondolin stands Morgoth shall know fear in his heart.'
But Turgon answered: 'Not long now can Gondolin be hidden; and being discovered it must fall.'
Then Huor spoke and said: 'Yet if it stands but a little while, then out of your house shall come the hope of Elves and Men. This I say to you, lord, with the eyes of death: though we part here forever, and I shall not look on your white walls again, from you and from me a new star shall arise. Farewell!'
And Maeglin, Turgon's sister-son, who stood by, heard these words, and did not forget them; but he said nothing.

This passage is interesting as it explains more precisely just what Húrin is trying to achieve in his last stand with Huor; but it also gives us a foreshadowing of the conflict between Tuor and Maeglin and the circumstances of the Fall of Gondolin. Maeglin's silence speaks volumes because it seems so unnecessary to the plot. What does it matter what Turgon's nephew heard, and what he did or did not choose to say? The battle is lost; the armies must try to escape. Only later do we find out about Maeglin's unrequited love for Idril, which would give him pause for thought at Huor's words.

We are then told that the men of Dor-lómin volunteer to fight a rearguard action that can only end in their destruction. We are told their motivation, but we have already seen that Huor and Húrin already have cause for hope: not for themselves, but for their cause.

But the men of Dor Lómin held the rearguard, as Húrin and Huor desired; for they did not wish in their hearts to leave the Northlands, and if they could not win back to their homes, there they would stand to the end. Thus was the treachery of Uldor redressed; and of all the deeds of war that the fathers of Men wrought on behalf of the Eldar, the last stand of the men of Dor-lómin is most renowned.This puts Húrin's words as he fights the trolls into a context that the reader can understand. Without the earlier build-up to this crisis, his words would make less sense (although they would be no less heroic for that). Facing what seems certain death, Húrin has his mind set only on the future and what his actions will achieve. His own fate is sealed and he draws inspiration from his certainty that what he is doing will play its part in final victory: "Aurë entuluva: day shall come again." Not just the physical dawn that is coming as he fights, but a dawn ending the night of Morgoth's domination.

This is what I think Tolkien meant when he spoke of gentle touches revealing a writer's intentions. Húrin's words are an echoing of the same northern heroic spirit that is present in Beorhtwald's famous lines from The Battle of Maldon:
Hige sceal Þe heardra, heorte Þe cenre,
mod sceal Þe mare Þe ure maegen lytlað

('Will shall be the sterner, heart the bolder, spirit the greater as our strength lessens')It refers to an entire mode of thinking that was as familiar to Tolkien as it was to the author of The Battle of Maldon more than seven-hundred years earlier. Men facing death in this milieu are not thinking about the final end, but of how they will behave as it approaches. Húrin's thoughts are plain to those with eyes to see, but his actual ability to kill seventy trolls, while in itself remarkable, is irrelevant in any other sense save as a means to bring him alive before Morgoth. In this scene, even more than in that involving Aragorn mentioned above, an internal dialogue or other journey through the man's psyche would break up the action, drawing attention away from other elements in the plot. It is enough that Húrin's motives and feelings are visible, and there is no need further to elaborate. "Brief phrases, light touches".

Even with Legolas and Gimli, presented by some as 'paper-thin' and a poor substitute for the Odd Couple, I think that it requires a considerably insensitive reading of their scenes to come to that conclusion. Yes, their relationship with one another is a simple friendship, but it serves its narrative purpose without interfering with the plot. Quite a large part of that purpose was, in my opinion, to demonstrate that if we will only open our minds a little the rewards may be immmense. Of course it is a minor plot-line, with much less significance than Frodo, Sam and Gollum's journey or the fall of Saruman and Denethor; but though it is minor, and given the detail appropriate to a minor part of the story, I feel that to describe the characters themselves as 'paper-thin' is again to overlook subtleties of expression in the text.

Legolas and Gimli are not closely-drawn characters, but it is still possible to infer without external reference their thoughts, their motivations and their emotions. Gimli particularly is inclined to wear his heart on his sleeve, as we see when the Fellowship discuss the road ahead in Hollin: 'I need no map,' said Gimli, who had come up with Legolas, and was gazing out before him with a strange light in his deep eyes. 'There is the land where our fathers worked of old, and we have wrought the image of those mountains into many works of metal and stone, and into many songs and tales. They stand tall in our dreams: Baraz, Zirak, Shathûr.
'Only once have I seen them from afar in waking life, but I know them and their names, for under them lies Khazad-dûm, the Dwarrowdelf, that is now called the Black Pit, Moria in the Elvish tongue.Look at Gimli's reaction to seeing this place that resonates so deeply with the dreams of his people. He has seen the peaks 'once in waking life': he could as easily say 'Only once have I seen them' and leave it at that, but he goes on to imply that here is something that he has seen in his dreams a thousand times. This emotional reaction is typical of him. He repeats it in Lothlórien in his scenes with Galadriel, and we see it again when he has his first glimpse of the Glittering Caves. His conversation with Legolas as they leave Lothlórien reveals depths to each character that are not admitted by the 'paper-thin' argument: The travellers now turned their faces to the journey; the sun was before them, and their eyes were dazzled, for all were filled with tears. Gimli wept openly.
'I have looked the last upon that which was fairest,' he said to Legolas. 'Henceforward I will call nothing fair, unless it be her gift.'
He put his hand to his breast.
'Tell me, Legolas, why did I come on this Quest? Little did I know where the chief peril lay! Truly Elrond spoke, saying that we could not forsee what we might meet upon our road. Torment in the dark was the danger that I feared, and it did not hold me back. But I would not have come had I known the danger of light and joy. Now I have taken my worst wound in this parting, even if I were to go this night straight to the Dark Lord. Alas for Gimli son of Glóin!'
'Nay!' said Legolas. 'Alas for us all! And for all that walk the world in these after-days. For such is the way of it: to find and lose, as it seems to those whose boat is on the running stream. But I count you blessed, Gimli son of Glóin: for your loss you suffer of your own free will, and you might have chosen otherwise. But you have not forsaken your companions, and the least reward you shall have is that the memory of Lothlórien shall remain ever clear and unstained in your heart, and shall neither fade nor grow stale.'

'Maybe,' said Gimli; 'and I thank you for your words. True words doubtless; yet all such comfort is cold. Memory is not what the heart desires. That is only a mirror, be it clear as Kheled-zâram. Or so says the heart of Gimli the Dwarf. Elves may see things otherwise. Indeed I have heard that for them memory is more like to the waking world than to a dream. Not so for Dwarves.
'But let us talk no more of it. Look to the boat! She is too low in the water with all this baggage, and the Great River is swift. I do not wish to drown my grief in cold water!'Is this the conversation of two characters without depth? It takes little imagination to see in Legolas' words the pity of the Elves' relations with other races. The mortals move on and leave, but the Elves are trapped within the world, unchanging and unable to follow. The most beautiful of their creations are destroyed, and they live to see most triumph turn back to disaster. Legolas speaks with the voice of experience. He has had many years to learn that we cannot hold on to the world; but Gimli is feeling for the first time the pain that the Elves feel at the passing away of beautiful things: a pain that they live with daily, and must overcome in bringing about the fall of Sauron. Even for one whose memory is like waking life, memory is not enough, and it is telling that Legolas never claims that it is. What he says is that an unstained memory is a great gift, and he has already implied that memory is what everything must eventually become. Who among the Fellowship is so well-placed as he to know this? This is a conversation about very profound thoughts, and if the characters are talking about them, they must also be thinking them. They might be talking about Lórien on the surface, but on a deeper level they are talking about the very relationship between experience and memory. This seems to indicate as well as anything that there is more to Gimli than a solid Dwarven miner and more to Legolas than the woodland prince. It may not come out often, but it is there; and we need to know that it is there if we are to feel for those characters at all.

Returning to Philip Pullman's comment that sparked off this whole furore: I agree entirely with Saucepan that it is his opinion, expressed and valid as such. Tolkien's characterisation is clearly not satisfying to Pullman, and this is neither a positive nor a negative reflection on him as a reader. Child said it very well when she said that there is too much of Tolkien in Tolkien's characters for some people. If one thinks as Tolkien does, this will cause his characters to resonate deeply; if, as in the case of Pullman, one's mind works differently, the same characters may seem undeveloped and thin. I do not share W.H. Auden's opinion, dismissed by Tolkien, that The Lord of the Rings can be used as a measure of literary taste. It is a deeply individual work, and like all things of great individuality it can be as off-putting for some as it is attractive for others. This is as true of the characterisation as it is of the language employed or the themes explored, and it is something that cannot leave anyone objectively in the right or the wrong. Pullman is entitled to talk about a lack of psychological depth because it is clearly his honest reaction to the book. He is not trying to convince us, but briefly explaining why he did not enjoy it; and in the context of an interview it seems to me that this is a reasonable line to take. Needless to say, though, I do not share his opinion.

[ 9:28 AM December 01, 2003: Message edited by: The Squatter of Amon Rûdh ]

[the phantom]

I am not looking for exhaustive detail and exploration when I look for depth. For me the author just has to show that there is more to the character than what appears on the surface.
Agreed, not to mention that exhaustive detail and exploration leave much less to the imagination (and the opportunity to use one's imagination is often why one would choose to read Tolkien or other works of fantasy).
Detailed journeys through a character's mind are inappropriate in a work of very wide physical or temporal scope
Quite right. Not all stories are written in the same fashion (and they certainly should not be read the same).
We must ask not whether there is detailed exploration of characters' thoughts and motivations, but whether we can infer from what he tells us that there is more to them than appears on the surface.
The method of "detailed exploration" would seem to be in order when writing a biography. Tolkien's method of showing depth seems much more...how should I say it...skillful and artistic.

"Detailed exploration" is necessary to give a character depth only when- 1) the author is not talented enough to subtly show the depth through the character's words and actions or 2) the reader is not talented enough to pick up on textual clues or come to any sort of conclusion without the author specifically telling them to.

Now, before you think I have offended other authors (or readers) with my statement note that I did not say detailed exploration did not have its uses. I am merely saying that it is not at all necessary to give a character depth.

[Lush]

1) the author is not talented enough to subtly show the depth through the character's words and actions or 2) the reader is not talented enough to pick up on textual clues or come to any sort of conclusion without the author specifically telling them to.

Oh boy. I guess I'll try to grab an extra moment to burn my copy of Ulysses before I sprint down to the Duke English Department to let them know that "hey guys, the authors we're reading aren't talented enough."

Seriously, there is plenty of room to argue that Pullman had it wrong, but such broad-siding as above is making me break out in hives.

[ 12:38 AM November 30, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

[the phantom]

Way to read, Lush. You managed to skip over the first part of the statement that you quoted (skipped over it to the point that you didn't even include it in the quote) and you also managed to skip my last paragraph.

Here's the entire statement-
"Detailed exploration" is necessary to give a character depth only when- 1) the author is not talented enough to subtly show the depth through the character's words and actions or 2) the reader is not talented enough to pick up on textual clues or come to any sort of conclusion without the author specifically telling them to.
Read it again. Notice the part at the beginning, particularly the word necessary. I said the detailed exploration method wasn't NECESSARY to give a character depth unless....

In other words, a good author can show depth through a character's actions and words. I did not say that an author couldn't use other ways.

Here's that last paragraph again-
Now, before you think I have offended other authors (or readers) with my statement note that I did not say detailed exploration did not have its uses. I am merely saying that it is not at all necessary to give a character depth.
As you can see, there's no reason for the hives breakout.

I would apologize for being unclear- but I don't think that I was.

[Lush]

Way to make me break out in more hives, Phantom. smilies/wink.gif

I don't want to get too far into the semantics of your previous statement, but unless I am completely misunderstanding your usage of "detailed exploration" and all that it implies, you are, in fact, insulting a huge chunk of what is considered to be great writing.

Then again, I don't want to be presumptuous.

Perhaps what you're insulting is the sort of writing that goes something like this:

"Jim felt that the existence of veggie burgers was intrinsically wrong in that it insulted the entire farm industry as he understood it. Though he did not realize it at the time, this emotion of mistrust toward veggie burgers stemmed from his suppressed feelings of lust for his 5th grade math teacher, who just happened to be a farmer's daughter. This emotion haunted him throughout his life and took on many forms of expression in his daily interactions with customers in the run-down diner in which he had been a server for over 5 years, his dreams of becoming champion in the tractor-race olympics being crushed after the recession hit the farming industry hard..."

Basically, I assume that you are expressing your disdain for writers that lay their cards out on the table and expect the big checks to roll in (as they often do, as one glance at the bestseller lists undoubtedly tells us).

But not all of detailed exploration works this way.

There, I hope I've made myself sufficiently clear. Now off to the druggist for some drugs for my hives.

[ 12:35 AM December 01, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

[the phantom]

You know what's funny? I'm listening to The Hives right now.
but unless I am completely misunderstanding... insulting a huge chunk of what is considered to be great writing
Yes, you're completely misunderstanding.
Basically, I assume that you are expressing your disdain for writers that lay their cards out on the table
Nope, I'm expressing my disdain for writers who are only able to give depth to their characters by laying all their cards on the table (since, like it or not, I believe that method to be less difficult and less artistic).

But more importantly I'm expressing my disdain for readers that are only able to see character depth if the author uses the "cards on the table" method.

(and by the way, I thought that little excerpt you gave was quite entertaining)

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Nope, I'm expressing my disdain for writers who are only able to give depth to their characters by laying all their cards on the table (since, like it or not, I believe that method to be less difficult and less artistic).

Whilst I agree with you that a writer who has to look into their characters' heads all the time in order to achieve depth probably won't make it into any list of great authors, I don't think that describing a character's thoughts is inherently any less artistic than other means of framing them.

Great novels use a subtle blend of various techniques to frame character: access to other characters' impressions of them, for example, or brief flashes of their own thoughts as well as their own words and actions (or lack of them). Really it's horses for courses. Tolkien wasn't trying to write a psychological study, but he was able to make his characters seem like real people. A quite different contemporary novel is Nineteen Eighty-Four, which explores themes of psychological manipulation. As such it makes sense to use the internal method of characterisation to a heightened degree. With Orwell's novel the reader needs direct access to the protagonist's thoughts, both because so many of his scenes are solitary ones and because we are intended to share his misery and horror. To show us a character's thoughts is a classic technique when we are intended to identify ourselves with that character. Jane Austen uses it in Pride and Prejudice to dupe the reader into sharing Elizabeth's opinions of Darcy and Wickham, the inaccuracy of which are part of the central theme of the novel. Stella Gibbons uses it in Cold Comfort Farm, completely transforming the dour and forbidding Starkadders into comic figures by giving us access to the heroine's impressions of them. Given a different auctorial slant, the same characters could form the cast of a tragedy.

Tolkien uses internal characterisation too: he shows us glimpses into the heads of Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin at various times in the story, and this is because they share the role of Winston Smith in 1984 and Elizabeth Bennett in Pride and Prejudice, that of mediator between the reader and the story (Tolkien needed more mediators because of the scale of his narrative). He uses the external method so extensively because we are intended to get to know all of the other characters through the hobbits. Why do we never see Sauron? Because none of the hobbits see Sauron and nobody who has describes him to them. Why do the Elves seem ethereal and mysterious? Because that's how they would seem to a hobbit. I doubt that an account by Gandalf would echo Sam's doting enthusiasm for all things Elven, but an angelic emissary would make a poor mediator given that the reader is intended not to have a comprehensive insight into the matters that are being described. Some people might prefer his viewpoint, but for that they would have to find a different writer. Tolkien would not have had the temerity to try to describe the workings of an angel's mind.

Incidentally: nice one, Lush. Very entertaining.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 6:21 AM December 06, 2003: Message edited by: The Squatter of Amon Rûdh ]

[the phantom]

Whilst I agree with you that a writer who has to look into their characters' heads all the time in order to achieve depth probably won't make it into any list of great authors
Well said.
I don't think that describing a character's thoughts is inherently any less artistic
I believe that it can be artistic (if it's done at the appropriate time with artistic language) but I still believe that when an author says "Mike is shy" he's being less creative and masterful than an author who shows Mike's shyness without explicitly saying it.

Of course there are exceptions (as there always are) when the obvious, in-your-face approach can be used for a specific purpose such as to explain a minor character's actions (since we don't know them well enough to grasp their personality) or to create a certain mood.

But again, my point was mainly about those authors and readers who only develop character through the tell-all method (and think that it's the only way). As far as those authors (like JRRT) who can develope character in less obvious ways, they're welcome to use any method they want (including the tell all) because they use it better (due to the fact that they use it for both development and effect).

[Theron Bugtussle]

* blinks, silently applauds Squatter's tome *

[The Saucepan Man]

I think that the problem with defining what is meant here by 'depth' is that we have no exposition of Pullman's opinion

My own view on what Pullman meant by "psychological depth" has been formed by reference to what I understand (from what others have said) to be his own style of writing, and the fact that he uses Gollum as an example of a character that he does consider to have psychological depth. It seems to me that he is talking about getting inside a character's head and understanding how they tick.

But you are right, Squatter. We cannot be certain what he meant. Nevertheless, it is still, I think, interesting to analyse the psychological depth of Tolkien's characterisation, however we may choose to define that term. My own analysis is by reference to my understanding of what Pullman meant by "psychological depth". But any analysis by reference to a different understanding of that term is equally valid, and will still help to cast light on Tolkien's style of characterisation. And I am certainly not seeking to restrict anyone here to sticking to my own understanding of the term, or even their understanding of what Pullman may have meant.

Detailed journeys through a character's mind are inappropriate in a work of very wide physical or temporal scope unless one wants to write the sort of book more suited to weightlifting than reading.

Agreed. As I have said, I do not see it as a criticism of Tolkien that some of his principal characters lack (what I would consider to be) psychological depth. But, as I have also sought to explain, I nevertheless think that it is there in some of the characters.

For me, an explicit journey into Aragorn's head would be like Elrond going into a detailed description of Túrin's nature and deeds when he mentions him at the end of The Council of Elrond. Why bother, Tolkien appears to think, when one can show the reader what they need to know to understand the character as the narrative unfolds?

Precisely. We learn exactly what we need to learn about Aragorn for the purposes of the story as the story develops. It gives him chracterisation, but I am still doubtful that it gives him any great psychological depth.

Your example of Aragorn singing of Beren and Luthien to the Hobbits, Squatter, does, I think give us some understanding of Aragorn's mind. However, such glimpses are rare. We do not get inside Aragorn's mind to the same extent that we do with, say, Sam or Gollum. But then we do not need to understand precisely what it is that he is thinking at every stage. Nor do we need to know exactly how he is analysing and reacting to every event as it unfolds. We learn just as much as we need in order to understand his role and significance within the story.

As for Hurin (and Huor) we can certainly understand from what they say at the Nirnaeth Arnoediad why it is that they fight the rearguard action to help Turgon and his host escape the battle. But I do not feel that this particular episode gives them any great psychological depth as characters. We can understand their motivation, but we do not really get into their minds any more than that. Again, we do not need to.

Having said that, however, I do feel that we gain a greater understanding of Hurin's state of mind during his subsequent interrogation and incarceration by Morgoth. We see his obdurate nature in his defiance and mockery of Morgoth and we can gain a sense of the emotional turmoil that he must have been going through, and the complete horror that he must have experienced on watching the systematic destruction of those nearest to him. Although we are never given any detailed exposition of his thoughts, we can understand why he is a broken man, and why he acts in the way that he does, when Morgoth finally releases him.

Interesting also that you mention Maeglin for I see him as character who holds greater psychological interest. Then again, that's harking back to my view that characters who are in turmoil in some way, or who are morally ambiguous, are the most interesting characters on a psychological level, which may (as has been suggested) simply be a matter of taste.

Turning to Legolas and Gimli, the passages that you have quoted, Squatter, are nice ones, and they do admittedly give us a glimpse of what these characters are thinking. Although perhaps they tell us more about the nature of their respective races, which is something that I think Tolkien was trying to achieve in his characterisation of Legolas and Gimli. Passages such as this do, of course give them some psychological depth. As you say:

we need to know that it is there if we are to feel for those characters at all.

But, as you also say, it does not come out often. And so, I cannot see these two characters as being distinguished by their psychological depth. They are not greatly developed as characters (in comparison to other characters in the story), save as representatives of their respective races, but, again, they do not need to be.

If one thinks as Tolkien does, this will cause his characters to resonate deeply; if, as in the case of Pullman, one's mind works differently, the same characters may seem undeveloped and thin.

I think that this takes us back to characterisation on a more general level. Clearly, Tolkien's characters resonate with all of us here, otherwise we would not be here. If we did not care about the characters, we would not care about their story. But I don't think that they necessarily require any great psychological depth for us to resonate with them.

In addition, of course, we will all resonate to varying degrees with different characters in Tolkien's works. Some will identify more with those characters that are drawn with greater psychological depth (in the sense that I am using that term). Others will prefer those that are principally characterised in different ways.

As for "detailed exposition", I agree that this is not necessary to give characters psychological depth. Examples have been given throughout this thread of characters who are given psychological depth (to varying degrees) by reference to external factors (Denethor and Eowyn spring to mind).

Maybe writers who can only use detailed exposition to get their point across are less talented (although not necessarily less successful, as Lush points out). But Squatter is right to make the point that certain types of novel require that the writer employs this style in order to achieve what he or she has set out to achieve. 1984 is certainly a good example of this, since we need to understand the effects of the events experienced by Winston Smith on his psychological state. This would be impossible without a good degree of internal characterisation. Another good example of this is The Magus by John Fowles, which also explores the effect of psychological manipulation on the mind of the protagonist (and is an excellent book, for those who have not read it).

But I must take issue with this statement, phantom:

"Detailed exploration" is necessary to give a character depth only when ... the reader is not talented enough to pick up on textual clues or come to any sort of conclusion without the author specifically telling them to.

You seems to to be saying that a reader who does not pick up an every textual clue left by the author is somehow less talented than a reader who analyses each passage for every subtle nuance that might be present. But I do not think that you can judge the reader's quality as a reader on this basis. Nor do I think that a reader who picks up less of the textual nuances necessarily requires detailed exposition in order for them to enjoy their reading experience.

For example, I probably gained a much greater understanding of the characters and events of LotR when I re-read it recently than when I first read it aged 11. But I also probably lost some of the magic that I experienced the first time round. Both reading experiences were different: the first was more emotional, the second more intellectual. But I would not judge one as better than the other. Nor would I say that I am any more talented now as a reader than I was when I was 11. I was simply a slightly different kind of reader.

[the phantom]

Nor would I say that I am any more talented now as a reader than I was when I was 11. I was simply a slightly different kind of reader.
Don't be silly. That's like me saying "I'm not a less talented basketball player than Michael Jordan, I'm just a different kind of basketball player".

Of course you're a better reader now than you were when you were eleven (unless you were a very early bloomer).
a reader who does not pick up an every textual clue... analyses each passage for every subtle nuance
Whoa. Don't go so overboard. My statement was meant to be a bit more general than that. I doubt there's anyone that catches everything, but people who can come to logical conclusions based on what they read are certainly better readers than those that cannot.

But my comment also had to do with people who lack imagination (people who can't create a rough profile of a character's personality without being told).

[The Saucepan Man]

Don't be silly.

Steady on phantom! smilies/eek.gif

That's like me saying "I'm not a less talented basketball player than Michael Jordan, I'm just a different kind of basketball player".

No it's not. Reading is nothing like playing basketball. As I said, I got different things from the book on each occasion that I read it, neither of which I would value above the other.

My statement was meant to be a bit more general than that. I doubt there's anyone that catches everything, but people who can come to logical conclusions based on what they read are certainly better readers than those that cannot.

I'm not going overboard. The second sentence here accurately summarises the sentiment that I have a problem with. I cannot agree that someone who makes these logical conclusions is somehow a better reader than someone who may miss them, but nevertheless experiences great enjoyment and satisfaction, perhaps on a more emotional level, from reading the same book.

Reading is not a competitive sport. smilies/rolleyes.gif smilies/wink.gif

[Lush]

If we are to become, as readers, more than mere consumers, it becomes evident that the notion of some sort of detailed exploration whether explicit or not permeates any great work of literature. One of literature's greatest functions, I would think, is to explore and to prompt the reader to do likewise, though different writers have different ways of achieving this.

Thus we have characters like Aragorn.

And then we have characters like Humbert Humbert.

[the phantom]

Steady on phantom!
Ah, one of my favorite Brit sayings. smilies/smile.gif
Reading is not a competitive sport.
Neither is driving your car around town, but there are certainly some drivers who are much better than others.

Of course in reading it depends on whether or not you have the same specific goal. Obviously you can't compare two people if one is reading specifically for pleasure and the other for comprehension. But if person A and person B are both reading the same book and both have the same purpose in mind (eg they want to know the characters as well as they can) and person A gets to know them much better than person B (because he is able to interpret what he is reading) then person A is a more talented reader in that sense.
but nevertheless experiences great enjoyment and satisfaction
Right now I'm not terribly concerned with how much people enjoy literature. I'm concerned with whether or not people are able to see character development.

As a child I really enjoyed reading all sorts of books (most of which had few deep characters, if any), but just because I had fun didn't make me a talented reader when it came to recognizing context clues as they related to the characteristics of the individuals in the story.

Don't be afraid to say that inequity exists in this world. It does. You are better than me at some things and I am better than you at some things. Similarly, some people are better readers when it comes to making logical inferences about book characters (which could be one reason why some people can't see depth when others can).

[Eurytus]

But if person A and person B are both reading the same book and both have the same purpose in mind (eg they want to know the characters as well as they can) and person A gets to know them much better than person B (because he is able to interpret what he is reading) then person A is a more talented reader in that sense.

Or of course, your intepretation could be totally wrong and different from what the author intended.

[The Saucepan Man]

Neither is driving your car around town ...

You haven't seen how I drive. smilies/eek.gif smilies/wink.gif

But unlike driving, or basketball, or brick-laying, or javelin-throwing, the quality of a person's reading cannot be observed and objectively assessed. Since (reading aloud aside) reading is a personal experience, "talent" in this area can, to my mind, only be relevant by reference to the contribution that it makes to the reader's reading experience. And how can anyone ever know for sure whether one person's reading experience is more or less valuable than another's?

Right now I'm not terribly concerned with how much people enjoy literature. I'm concerned with whether or not people are able to see character development.

Er, like most people, I read (novels) as a form of entertainment (mostly for enjoyment, but it need not, I suppose, necessarily be a pleasurable experience). So I see an understanding of character development only in terms of how it might influence the reading experience.

You have in mind, I suppose, reading for educational purposes (such as in school or college). That is not, in my view, the primary purpose of novels. Nevertheless, while such readers do tend to be rewarded for their intellectual understanding, is their experience really more valuable than someone someone who passes on the literary analysis but resonates with the novel on an emotional level? I cannot say that it is. Indeed, the first reader may have a very good textual understanding of a book but loathe it, while the second adores it despite lacking that same understanding (and failing their tests on it). Who is the better reader then?

You are better than me at some things and I am better than you at some things.

Unbdoubtedly. Pick a sport, any sport, and you will unquestionably be better at it than me. But there is no way of assessing objectively which one of us is the "better" reader, if indeed there really is such a thing.

Similarly, some people are better readers when it comes to making logical inferences about book characters ...

I agree that some people will be better at making logical inferences about book characters from textual clues. But surely that does not necessarily make them better readers.

Please feel free to reply, phantom. But, since this is heading in a decidedly "off-topic" direction, I am inclined not to respond further myself, save to the extent pertinent to the topic at hand.

[the phantom]

I, too, will stop replying after this final post.
quality of a person's reading cannot be observed and objectively assessed
Ever hear of a reading test? I got a nice scholarship partially because the people who made the ACTs objectively assessed my reading level. smilies/wink.gif
whether one person's reading experience is more or less valuable... by reference to the contribution that it makes to the reader's reading experience... is their experience really more valuable... but resonates with the novel on an emotional level... while the second adores it despite lacking that same understanding
These comments are primarily what has pulled us off topic. My point has never been about "enjoyment", "value", or "experience", my point has been about the reader's ability to recognize character depth (and character depth is what this thread is about).

Note that I've already said that you can't compare this with someone who's reading for pleasure-
Obviously you can't compare two people if one is reading specifically for pleasure and the other for comprehension.
And also note that I've said more than once that I'm referring to reading ability specifically as the reader's ability to recognize character depth-
I'm concerned with whether or not people are able to see character development... some people are better readers when it comes to making logical inferences about book characters
so I'm not sure where the problem is. Once again, my comments have nothing to do with enjoyment or overall reading experience. They have to do with the topic.
I agree that some people will be better at making logical inferences about book characters from textual clues.
This is exactly what my point is, and you say that you agree with me, so why the debate? smilies/eek.gif
But surely that does not necessarily make them better readers.
It does in that specific aspect of reading, and this specific aspect of reading is all that I have in mind right now (since it is this specific aspect that I thought was relevant to the topic).

(and I'm sure you could beat me at bowling SP, I'm a terrible bowler smilies/wink.gif )

[ 1:50 PM December 02, 2003: Message edited by: the phantom ]

[Sharkû]

Like BW (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=003676&p=4#000139) said, when posts quote other posts more than adding anything new, it's a bad sign and time to give it a rest.

[The Saucepan Man]

OK, you suceeded in drawing me out one more time, phantom. smilies/wink.gif

We are veering off topic because we are discussing general aspects of the reading experience rather than the topic of this thread: psychological depth in Tolkien's characters. That is perhaps my fault for picking up on a general comment which you made, but it has nothing to do with me bringing up the concept of entertainment. You cannot sensibly discuss aspects of the reading experience without taking into account its primary objective.

My point has never been about "enjoyment", "value", or "experience", my point has been about the reader's ability to recognize character depth (and character depth is what this thread is about).

Yes, but my point is that these concepts are inextricably linked. You cannot consider them in isolation. Save in the limited area of education, we do not read novels solely for the purpose of trying to comprehend their characters. We read them to be entertained. Gaining an understanding of the characters is an aspect of the reading experience and one of the factors that may (or may not) contribute towards us being entertained by a book.

Phantom, you started by saying:

"Detailed exploration" is necessary to give a character depth only when ... the reader is not talented enough to pick up on textual clues or come to any sort of conclusion without the author specifically telling them to.

... and went on to explain your comment as follows:

people who can come to logical conclusions based on what they read are certainly better readers than those that cannot.

It was these blanket statements that I disagreed with.

But if you are simply saying that:

some people will be better at making logical inferences about book characters from textual clues.

... then I agree with you. smilies/rolleyes.gif smilies/tongue.gif smilies/wink.gif

And I'm bad at bowling too! smilies/frown.gif

So let's get back to psychological depth in Tolkien's characters. smilies/smile.gif

Edit: Fair enough, Sharkû. That's all from me on this issue.

[ 2:04 PM December 02, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Theron Bugtussle]

As this topic got well over my head, I moved on to others (hopefully less over my head) here on the Downs. Meanwhile, in the Movies forum, a reference was posted to an article that I think is applicable to this topic. (It is a short read.)

"Our culture is sadly unused to fully realized portrayals of good characters." (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/dalfonzo200312220001.asp)

I think it is applicable to the previous discussion in that some 'modern' reviewers (and film makers) may come to these books without an ability to appreciate Tolkien's ability to portray good. Perhaps we have a state of culture such that we find "evil more fascinating than good."

(Thanks to mark12_30 for the link.)

[Lush]

Nice link, though I, once again, disagree with using some nebulous notion of "today's culture" to blame Phillip Pullman and myself for finding some (if not all) of Tolkien's characters to be particularly psychologically deep on their own accord (this is when you subtract Tolkien's keen ability to draw the reader into the story so far that one has little problem picturing himself or herself as Sam, making his lonely choices in Mordor, for example).

I am do not view Tolkien's characters to be, on the most part, psychologically shallow because I live in the modern age, but because my definition of literary psychological depth differs from yours.

I believe that these characters are deep the way myth is deep, in that they do not allow for a close, personal study, and yet are able to resonate with the reader on a different level than, say, the likes of Humbert Humbert, Nick Carroway, or Anna Karenina.

We see Anna Karenina from the inside out, as opposed to the majority of Tolkien's characters (Gollum and, I would argue, Sam being the notable exceptions, but even then the inner psychological drama of these characters does not come close to what is happening inside Anna Karenina), where the reverse tactic is used by the author.

Calling Tolkien's characters "psychologically deep" is, in part, a slighting of writers like Tolstoy, Nabokov, Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Zadie Smith, and the like, whose concerns are, indeed with viewing characters from the inside out. None of these authors, however, were concerned with writing a mythology, which is what Tolkien was doing, and which, coincidentally, demands for a different approach in exploring the merit of each individual character.

I don't agree with Pullman's dismissal of Tolkien, because the criteria he uses to judge the book do not seem applicable to me, but I do agree with him that if one is looking for psychological depth, one should probably look elsewhere.

Incidentally, Anna Karenina appeared on the literary stage over a century ago. With this character in mind, arguing that it is the modern age specifically that has a problem with Tolkien's characters is, to me, a bit silly.

Furthermore, is The Lord of the Rings not a bestseller? Do millions of people not flock to see the cinematic adaptation? If modern culture does not "appreciate" what Tolkien is doing, then it certainy has a peculiar way of expressing itself. smilies/wink.gif

[Finwe]

Bravo, Lush!


Society shouldn't be blamed for the differences in perception of a group of people. Different people will always have different opinions. That is a given. Philip Pullman is fully entitled to his own opinion and perception of Tolkien's works, just as we are entitled to our own opinions and perceptions. But could we not also say that our words are clouded with bias? We love these books, ergo, we will defend them at all costs. Perhaps it takes the (relatively) objective eye of a non-fan to understand Tolkien's characters. We have to take that into consideration.

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

On a broader scale, there's a huge distinction between not having any psychological depth and being written so a character reminds you of traits which are found in actual people you know and see all the time in life.

It's important to realize that for the sake of the story, not every facet of each character needed to be analyzed. Especially in a story about a fellowship of people, as we all know in a group, certain aspects commit people to filling a niche in each particular group. A certain group of friends may be described as having a 'smart one', 'crazy one', 'tough one', 'grim one', 'optimistic one', 'foolish one', and so forth.

The Fellowship divided them into those basic parts - naturally the more important characters got a little more depth added.

Also, later on more characters replaced, swapped, and passed on obvious and for the most part clear (therefore being confused for say, "cookie-cutter") characteristics. Boromir went through issues, went a bit mad, died back where he should have been - noble, honest and true. He died, but to take the part of noble, honest and true, soon Faramir got introduced, almost picking up where Boromir left off as far as the quest went.

There were a lot of dynamics that were alluded to also, but which weren't quite as obvious. It's obvious that say, Frodo, has already done a whole lot of maturing . . . he used to be something of a vegetable thief and a ragtag, now he's become a respectable young bachelor.

A lot of minor characters and enemies tend to represent individual characteristics too, orcs and trolls, the nazgul, elves, all tend to represent certain aspects which can be found in all of the characters and in each of us readers too. I think Tolkien, who wrote for himself, automatically assumed anyone else reading would be able to determine various psychological depths without him actively guiding us through their inner psyches.

[warrenerd]

i'm taken aback by that ignorant comment from the boy in the newspaper. tolkien was so careful in the character depth. they are all so complex and varied. i won't even start with examples.
~confiding to the wall~
:smokin:

[Kronos]

No, no, give us examples. Start with the complexities of Legolas.

[Finwe]

Yes indeed. Why don't we start with the depth of compassion and love that he has for the Hobbits and Middle-earth. Why don't we start with the way he seems to be able to find humor in every situation, even on Caradhras. Why don't with the start with the faith and loyalty that he has, enough to stand by Aragorn and his companions to the end. Legolas didn't have to volunteer for the Fellowship. He could have gone back to Mirkwood and isolated himself. He volunteered for the Quest because he felt a deep loyalty and love for Middle-earth. He was one of the most noble, self-less characters in the books. Don't belittle him because Tolkien didn't choose to give us more insight into his character.

[Lush]

i'm taken aback by that ignorant comment from the boy in the newspaper.

I am also taken aback by the fact that such "boys" can win the Carnegie Medal, sell a zillion copies of their books, and do such a fine job of turning Milton on his head.

Clearly the guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

No, no, give us examples. Start with the complexities of Legolas.

Yes indeed. Why don't we start with the depth of compassion and love that he has for the Hobbits and Middle-earth. Why don't we start with the way he seems to be able to find humor in every situation, even on Caradhras. Why don't with the start with the faith and loyalty that he has, enough to stand by Aragorn and his companions to the end. Legolas didn't have to volunteer for the Fellowship. He could have gone back to Mirkwood and isolated himself. He volunteered for the Quest because he felt a deep loyalty and love for Middle-earth. He was one of the most noble, self-less characters in the books. Don't belittle him because Tolkien didn't choose to give us more insight into his character.

Both Kronos and Finwe have a point. On one side, there really isn't that much to Legolas. On the other side, we have the interesting case of someone that occupies a crucial niche in the narrative; Legolas is one of the few Elves willing to take an active role in the proceedings that decide the ultimate fate of Middle Earth. I wouldn't call the qualities Finwe listed as "depth" per se, because Tolkien never fleshes Legolas out; but that does detract from a reader's enjoyment of him. And that blond wig in the movies? Mmmmm.

[The Saucepan Man]

On one side, there really isn't that much to Legolas. On the other side, we have the interesting case of someone that occupies a crucial niche in the narrative Precisely. The fact that Legolas as a character lacks psychological depth doesn't make him any less of an integral character in the context of the story that Tolkien was telling.

As I have said many times on this thread, the fact that many of Tolkien's characters lack psychological depth is not a criticism. It is simply a comment.

[Falagar]

Just a quick comment, I believe I lack much of experience with fantasy (I have however read HIM and am very fond of them) and literature compared to most of you so I don't have much authority on the subject (plus it's 3'o clock in the morning around here and I only have time to read the first page of this thread).

I believe that Tolkien was more of a poet than an author. His greatest strenght lies in conjuring up wonderful pictures, using analogues and adjectives that create visions in the reader's head. The Lord of the Rings is in that way similar to works like the Iliad (which I love very much), some characters are very well fleshed out (as already mentioned many times) while others are there more for the purpose of soming with the right words at the right time.

Became a bit shorter than originally intended...Hope I made some sense.

[Lyta_Underhill]

I believe that Tolkien was more of a poet than an author. His greatest strenght lies in conjuring up wonderful pictures, using analogues and adjectives that create visions in the reader's head. He does conjure up some amazing pictures in my and others minds, Falagar! I think also there is credit to be given to the logical and mythological consistency in his world as a backdrop to the story and characters therein. The fact that every name has a discoverable meaning, each event has a resonance in an earlier event that has been put down by Tolkien as background adds to the richness of story that may serve to augment, at least in effect, the depth of characters in the tale. The characters have a delineated history, which is enriched as one delves into the Legendarium more and more but which is hinted at in the main tale, thus giving more of a suggestion of depth beyond what is actually given outright to the reader.

Perhaps I mistake historical or mythological depth for psychological depth, but, then again, I am not up on my terminology and do not have an advanced English degree (although my husband the Witch King does, but he isn't talking--actually, he is rolling his eyes at my overdone Tolkien obsession as it is!) ;)

Cheers!
Lyta

P.S. It is good to see this thread re-awakened!

[Kronos]

If Legolas was in a work by any other author except Tolkien then he would simply be identikit Elf No.1.

He personality traits amount to little more than the type of character traits exposed by the "in depth" interviews of celebrities on MTV.

Legolas, like archery, singing and the sea.

Going on about him joining the quest because of selflessness and the like could be argued equally about nearly all the fellowship. It is not unique to Legolas.
The real reason he joined is because the fellowship needed an Elf.
The same reason Gimli joined.

For a novel that is continously voted as best of the century, best of the milennium etc, I find it interesting that in a poll of the best 100 characters in fiction conducted by Book magazine, none of Tolkien's characters featured.

Pretty fitting for an author who spent more words describing green hill country than he does describing many of his major characters.

http://www.npr.org/programs/totn/features/2002/mar/020319.characters.html

[Legolas]

It seems obvious that whether or not he was good at or spent a good deal of time characterizing, it is likely that he would not have a character on that page because Lord of the Rings is more of a history or a broader narrative in describing events rather than books that are more personal (The Catcher in the Rye) or those that have a clearly defined central character (Winnie the Pooh). Simply glancing down the list confirms such suspicions - many of these stories are linear, following one person, one central conflict, etc. Sherlock Holmes, Grendel, Holden Caulfield, Jay Gatsby, James Bond, the Little Prince, the Cat in the Hat, Peter Pan, and Tarzan (and so on...) don't have much competition within their respective stories. Tolkien's readers have many more (likely) choices than most.

[Theron Bugtussle]

Originally posted by Kronos
For a novel that is continously voted as best of the century, best of the milennium etc, I find it interesting that in a poll of the best 100 characters in fiction conducted by Book magazine, none of Tolkien's characters featured.

Pretty fitting for an author who spent more words describing green hill country than he does describing many of his major characters. I agree with Legolas' post above. But maybe Kronos has a point, too.

Tolkien could have gotten at least one character in the Top 100, if he had wanted to. Imagine at the Bridge of Khazad Dum, instead of Gandalf saying this enemy is beyond any of your powers, it could have been the Cat in the Hat claiming, "Nothing is too hard for a Hat Cat like me!"