[The Saucepan Man]

Saucepan, there’s a lot going on here, but you’re already opting out of the conversation.

Well, it's more that I don't want this thread to be wholly taken up by my attempts to explain my understanding of "psychological depth", Mister Underhill. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

But, you have succeeded in provoking me to expound further. [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img] [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

I will start by agreeing with you. It really comes down to how you define the term.

Really, in a good characterization, everything flows from and speaks to a character’s psychology – what motivates him or her. Everything from his job, to the clothes he wears, to the attitudes he holds, to the things he values, to the things he says and does.

You seem to equate "psychological depth" with "characterisation", whereas I see it as just one aspect of characterisation, along with the other factors that you have listed. Knowing a character's job or being told of their appearance will assist in giving us an idea of their character, but they will not, in themselves, give the character any psychological depth. Just as an understanding of a character's psychology will not, in itself, necessarily tell us anything about their job or what they look like.

I think part of the problem here is that you’re trying to box your definition of “psychological depth” into a very narrow concept, one that I don’t think can be so neatly separated from other aspects of characterization. And I don’t think that’s what Pullman had in mind either.

Well, I agree that psychological depth cannot be neatly separated from other aspects of characterisation. It is the interplay between all of these aspects that gives us the complete character. But I do see psychological depth as just one factor in this fluid concept of "character". And I do think that is how Pullman sees it too. I find it difficult to believe that he would have described LotR as a book lacking in "psychological depth" if, by that expression, he simply meant "characterisation". To me he is saying that he wants to get into the minds of the characters, and that he doesn't get this sense from LotR.

I agree that he sees this as a failing of Tolkien's works. That is where opinion comes into it. I happen to disagree with him on two counts. First, as I have indicated in my previous posts, I think that we do get into the minds of a number of characters in Tolkien's works, whether by being given direct access to their thoughts or by being given an understanding of their internal reactions from their external actions and reactions, and their dialogue with other characters. And, secondly, where the characters do lack psychological depth (in the sense that I am talking about) I do not see this as a failing, because, in these instances, it is not necessary from the perspective of the story for us to get into their minds.

You have quoted an excerpt from an earlier post where I said that characters who lack internal struggle or who are unambiguously good will be less psychologically interesting. What I am really saying is that, if we simply see a character's actions and gain no understanding of what is driving those actions, there can be no psychological interest in that character. They will have no psychological depth (in the sense that I understand the term). The more we gain an understanding of their psyche, the more psychologically interesting they become. Neither inner turmoil nor moral ambiguity is necessary to give a character psychological depth but, where factors such as these are present, then I believe that there will be greater psychological depth, and therefore the character will be more interesting from a psychological standpoint. But, rather than being a matter of taste, I think that the difference between us is in our respective definitions of "psychological depth".

I think important characters must be drawn with psychological depth to be interesting to the extent that they must come across as believable, “real” characters, ones whose motivations and struggles we can understand and empathize with

Again, the issue here is one definition. On my understanding of the expression, characters can be interesting, believable and accessible (in terms of empathising with them) without necessarily having any great psychological depth. As I said earlier, I find that I identify more with those characters in whom I do find psychological depth, although that, perhaps, is a matter of taste.

You can certainly define psychological depth in any way you like, but you must then ask how useful that definition is. I think that a much more interesting concept than psychological depth (as defined by The Saucepan Man) is characterization.

Actually, Aiwendil, I agree with you. My purpose in starting this thread was to explore whether Tolkien's characters do have "psychological depth" in the sense that I understand Pullman to have been using the expression. And, if so, which ones and what techniques Tolkien uses to give them that depth. But I am happy for the thread to broaden out into a discussion of characterisation in the wider sense.

Of course, you can analyze psychological depth as a technique used in characterization. This is perfectly valid and, I think, very interesting. But you must then face the difficulty that there is no clear line between this aspect of characterization and others.

Again, I agree. I wholly accept that there will be a blurring between different aspects of characterisation.

Ultimately, I suspect that this debate on terms of reference is unlikely to take us much further. But I see no reason why the discussion of "psychological depth" in Tolkien's characters should not continue on the basis of whatever definition people may choose to apply to that term. That, in itself, may assist us in gaining a greater understanding of what the term entails. And, if this means that the discussion broadens out into an analysis of characterisation on a more general level, then that is fine by me.