[The Saucepan Man]

Lord of Angmar, you analysis of Aragorn and the mental journey that he undergoes in LotR certainly shows that there is a psychological element to his characterisation. But then this is true of virtually all characters in any novel. All characters exist on a psychological level to some degree or other.

Aragorn has psychological depth in the sense that there is some depth to his psychology. But does it make him psychologically deep? My view is that it does not. Sure, he is troubled by uncertainty and overcomes this, becoming mentally stronger. This mental development is necessary for the purposes of the story, since he needs to become the strong, self-assured figure that he we see regaining his throne at the end. But I don't see that we really gain any great understanding of his psyche in all this. We see the development of one aspect of it, but that, to my mind, does not make him a psychologically deep character.

I realise that I am straying back into the dangerous area of differing definitions here. But, if we are seeking to determine whether Aragorn is a character who is distinguishable by reason of his psychological depth, which I think is what Pullman was getting at in saying that Tolkien's characters lack psychological depth, then I do not think that we can say that he is. He is no more psychologically developed than a great many other characters in a great many other novels.

If, on the other hand, we are simply seeking to identify the psychological aspects of Aragorn's character (which is worthy in itself, but not I think what Pullman had in mind), then your analysis is an excellent one. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Much the same goes for Legolas and Gimli, save that I see them as being far less psychologically developed, even than Aragorn. I agree with what you say, Aiwendil. The relationship between these two characters is a nice little story, but it is tangential to the main plot. It links in with the theme of friendship, but it is not central to that theme. And so, their characters are developed only to the extent than they need to be. As you say, that is not a criticism. But I find it difficult to see how they can be said to be particularly well-developed characters, let alone ones with any great degree of psychological depth.