[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).