[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.