[Eurytus]

Quite a few people on this thread have stated that we get all the psychological depth we need in Tolkien from the character’s actions. I cannot see how this can be the case.
If we take one of the examples used, that of Hurin, and look at one of the major “actions” he performs, that of slaying the 70 odd trolls.

What does this really tell us about his psychology? In reality it tells us nothing. We know what he did, we can only guess at the reason he did it.
Now he states that he has done it to guard Turgon’s retreat but is that the whole psychological reason for him to make that choice.

Why do people make self sacrificial choices? Do they do it because the gift of foresight tells them that Turgon will be the origin of the saving of Middle Earth? If that is the reason does it tell us anything much about the psychology of the person involved?
Would someone do it because they are consumed by bloodlust? Are they a naturally violent person? Are their selfish, perhaps arrogant reasons behind wanting to do it. Perhaps they want to be a hero. Perhaps they want to create feelings of guilt in those that survive.
There are a myriad of reasons that might make someone choose such a hopeless route. Some of which may be a construct of upbringing, some may be spur of the moment.
The fact that the reason we are given is that of foresight does not, in my view, increase our psychological awareness of this man.

Another thing that has been stated is a viewpoint to the effect of “why do we even need to get in their head in the first place?” The reason I would posit is because that is the most interesting place to be. Far more exciting to be inside the head of someone doing something amazing than just to be watching it. You effectively become the character.

Some examples, David Beckham scoring the World Cup winner. Neil Armstrong becomes the first man on the moon. The Beatles play Shea Stadium.

Now this are all exciting things. But what is the most interesting option? To watch these events or to be the World Cup winner, with all the attendant emotions that would follow? To be the first man on the moon, doing something that no man has ever done before, something that decades previously was a work of fiction. To play Shea Stadium with the biggest band in the world, surrounding by thousands and thousands of screaming fans?

Now I can’t speak for everybody but I know where I would rather be. Feeling is better than merely seeing.

Another issue with not getting inside someone’s head within a book is that you cannot truly know where that person is coming from. An example. In George RR Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire (which is a book that lets you inside the heads of the characters) the first couple of books are told predominantly from the viewpoint of the members of one family. From that perspective the actions of one of the other major characters makes them seem a truly evil and immoral person. Now if this person was to have their psychology defined by their actions as some here claim is acceptable, then that would be the analysis of their character. However in the later books this person is given a viewpoint. Now their actions do not change but the impression of the psyche that one gets is now totally different. Suddenly many of the actions seem reasonable or at the very least understandable from this person’s perspective. Now they are far more interesting a character for it, far removed from being a “stock baddie”.
This method therefore is far more effective for seeing the psychological depths of the character.