The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - Psychological depth in Tolkien's characters

***Mister Underhill*** · 11-22-2003, 10:55 AM

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.

11-22-2003, 10:55 AM	#102
*Mister Underhill* Dread Horseman Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Behind you! Posts: 2,744	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.