[Orofaniel]

Finwe- I'm really sorry about your loss, you have my sympathies...

~*~

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?

Yes, I quite agree. There has to bee something about the story and the characters that make people love it. And not only that, but also feel that they have something in common with the characters. My point is, that if there were no thought behind the characters in LotR or other Tolkien' characters, I don't think that it would have come as far as movie making, action figure making, web site making etc. Books are often a hiding place for people, I think. At least it is for me sometimes. And when you've finished a book, you feel that you know the characters, it's almost as they are your friends. So if they had no psychological depth, I doubt that how can you then feel that. I think that every good book have characters with deep psychological. Because the book wouldn't be a "good book" without it, because we wouldn't be able to feel that we have something in common with the characters. But I think we must remember that a “good” book is different from person to person. Not everyone like LotR, maybe that’s because they don’t feel that they have anything in common with the characters? And if so, they think they have no psychological depth.

I think that Tolkien's character have a lot of psychological depth. The thing is that you have to read between the lines as one the previous posters on this thread said. I totally agree. I think that if you want to understand Tolkien's characters, and what history lies behind them, then you have to read between the lines. I have to admit that there are many of Tolkien's characters that are "unclear" to me, but I also think that maybe it is supposed to be like that. Maybe I feel that the character doesn't have that much psychological depth because I don't feel "one" with him/her. I doubt that everyone feel that they have something in common with ex. Frodo. Why is that? I think it's because each person as the characters have their own psychological depth.

And since there are so many characters I think it's even harder to sort out what really is behind.
Bêthberry wrote:
quote:

I've read evil characters who are plain, flatout boring to me. I've read good characters who are fascinating. The trick, it seems to me, lies in the telling of the tale, in how the character's perspective is dramatized within the tale.

I totally agree with you. I think that how the tale is told is a very important factor when it comes to how "deep" the character is.

We seem to have come up with several ways of 'characterising' characterization. We have mentioned depth, complexity, change. I would like to suggest a fourth criterion, that of mystery.

I would also like to say that I think the psychological depth has much to do with mystery. The psychological depth makes us curious I think. We are wondering what really is behind the character's actions/comments etc. Maybe each action has its own psychological depth, and that it doens't necessarily tell us all about the character's psychological depth. But of course, how the character acts tell us what the character thinks in that moment (I think so at least), but it doesn't mean he/she thinks that all the time.
Tom Bombadill is one of those characters. Is he an enigma? Is he a Maia? There are certain things that he does that would remind us of what he really is, but the thing is..:

'Even in a mythical age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally).' (JRR Tolkien, Letter #144)

So, Tolkien kind of leaves with nothing. But at the same time, he leaves us with the answer. We know that Tolkien made him a mystery for the readers intentionally. But what does this mean? That he has no psychological depth? I think it's the opposite. I think that there is a thin line between psychological depth and mysteries. Both of them make us curious. But then again, I said that psychological depth is "important" for us readers so that we can compare ourselves with the characters. So, if mystery is only a thin line away from psychological depth, does that mean that we can compare us selves with the mystery in the characters? The unknown things? But maybe there is a difference between psychological depth and mysteries. 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. But I think that you can compare your self with characters that have "an open" psychological depth, but not characters that remain as mysteries.

So, maybe when Pullman said that he thought that Tolkien's characters didn't have any psychological depth, he didn't have anything in common with the characters, or (worse) he didn't read between the lines...... [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

I've probably repeated myself many times in this post, I just hope that someone understood my point..... [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[ November 23, 2003: Message edited by: Orofaniel ]