[Aiwendil]

The Saucepan Man wrote:

Aiwendil, it seems to me that there is little between us.

Agreed.

I wouldn't say arbitrary.

I meant "all definitions are arbitrary" in the most logical, pedantic sense. Of course, some definitions are more practical than others, or more useful than others. And in this case I think that your definition is practical and to a great extent useful, as well. But I think that many times people can entrenched in pointless debates because what they are fundamentally differing over is the definition of some term - and there is no "right" definition.

Maybe not consciously. But I think that the way in which an author chooses to use characteristion will affect the way in which the reader sees and reacts to those characters and it will therefore affect the reader's overall appreciation of the story.

Yes, I agree. My point was simply that, in large part, the psychological method of characterization and whatever other method one might choose have the same goal, and the same result. These may not be exactly the same results; and there may also be secondary results that arise from one or the other method. But they can be, with some justification, lumped together in the category of "characterization", which is meaningfully distinct (though not disjoined) from plot, milieu, and so forth.

But I think that this only goes to reinforce my view that many of Tolkien's characters lack psychological depth. Characters who are unambiguously good or unambiguously evil will be less psychologically interesting than those who are more ambiguous in this regard, or who are flawed in some way.

I think we're hitting an area where the inexactness of the definitions is causing confusion. One could very well say that an unambiguously good character is psychologically deep because we see all that there is to see of his or her psyche - it just happens not to be very complicated. One could also say that an unambiguously good character is not psychologically deep because his or her psyche is simple and thus lacks depth. These things seem contradictory only because each employs a slightly different definitions for "psychologically deep".

Eurytus wrote:

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.

I think that perhaps you misunderstand the argument that a lot of people are making here.

I certainly do not think that the fact that Hurin kills 70 trolls (which, incidentally, may be a "fact" invented by Christopher Tolkien - but that matters little) means that he is psychologically deep. Indeed, I didn't even mention it when I sketched a brief analysis of Hurin's character:

Hadorians are typically tall and fair-haired, Hurin is fair-haired but short (the opposite of his son, who is tall but dark-haired). This means that while we can expect many of the associations of the House of Hador to apply to him, others will not. Chief, perhaps, is his steadfastness, which is more typical of the House of Beor. There is a great deal of interesting contrast with Morwen (a striking character herself). When Lalaith died, Morwen "met her grief in silence and coldness of heart. But Hurin mourned openly" (Narn i Chin Hurin, UT 64). Hurin's steadfastness is a complicated thing: in a sense he defies Morgoth to the end, refusing to betray Turgon. But in another sense he fails, for he is made bitter and grim, and he brings ruin to Brethil and to Doriath. It is fascinating to compare the Hurin of the first part of the Narn with the Hurin of "The Wanderings of Hurin".

Now this may not be psychological depth in the sense defined above by The Saucepan Man, but it certainly is characterization.

The fact that he fought valiantly to cover Turgon's retreat gives us just one piece of information about him: he is valiant. It hints at steadfastness, which is also seen elsewhere, and it hints at friendship or devotion to Turgon, which is also found elsewhere.

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.

Certainly. And if Tolkien had been writing a different book (indeed, a different kind of book) he might have given Hurin one of these motivations and explored it. But the point has been made several times that Tolkien's works are not primarily character studies. The point has also been made that it is an important feature of Tolkien's world that there really are people like Hurin who will valiantly fight just because it is the right thing to do.

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.

You identify some of the benefits of the internal/psychological approach. No one has, as far as I recall, denied that there are such benefits. But there are benefits to the external approach as well: it is less likely to impede the plot; it allows us to come to know characters in the same way we come to know people in real life, it makes (though only through implication) the subtle argument that it is what we do that is important rather than what we think (the fact that the opposite point can also be made by taking the other approach in no way negates the validity of this one); in the particular case of Tolkien, it allowsfor an essential feature of his world - the existence of unambiguously good characters.

You cite an example of internal characterization from Martin. I cited one from Dostoevsky. Both are examples of the internal method being used in a very particular way to acheive a very particular result. I haven't read the book you mentioned, but I love Crime and Punishment. I think it uses the internal method extremely effectively. But I don't think that means that the internal method is the only valid method.