Quote:
|
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: Bęthberry ]