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?
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~
|