Psychological depth in Tolkien's characters - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

***Mister Underhill*** · 11-19-2003, 08:17 PM

Great posts all around.

After reading Saucepan’s last, though, I wonder if it might not be worthwhile to make a distinction between psychological depth and psychological complexity. Saucepan’s definition of the former seems to require the latter, but if I’m reading you right, Sauce, I don’t agree.

I relate “depth” more with a certain profoundness or intensity, but not necessarily with complication. Which is not to say that a character cannot be both psychologically deep and complex, but I don’t think that depth proceeds naturally from complexity or vice versa. I’m pulling a bit of mental tongue-twister there, but perhaps I’m not entirely unclear.

Eurytus cited Melville’s Ahab as a psychologically deep character – but Ahab isn’t particularly complicated (nor is he, incidentally, drawn using the “internal” method). My intention is not to center the conversation around a particular character – other examples may be cited, I’m sure – but rather to ask whether depth and complexity are necessarily related.

For the record, I understand “show” versus “tell” in the same way that Helen uses it: when something comes out through monologue, including internal monologue, that’s telling the audience. When information or character is revealed through action, that’s showing the audience. Incidentally, I think the “show don’t tell” rule is a bit overworked by some writing instructors, but that’s neither here nor there.

EDITED to make my tongue-twister a bit more clear.

[ November 19, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

11-19-2003, 08:17 PM	#11
*Mister Underhill* Dread Horseman Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Behind you! Posts: 2,744	Great posts all around. After reading Saucepan’s last, though, I wonder if it might not be worthwhile to make a distinction between psychological depth and psychological complexity. Saucepan’s definition of the former seems to require the latter, but if I’m reading you right, Sauce, I don’t agree. I relate “depth” more with a certain profoundness or intensity, but not necessarily with complication. Which is not to say that a character cannot be both psychologically deep and complex, but I don’t think that depth proceeds naturally from complexity or vice versa. I’m pulling a bit of mental tongue-twister there, but perhaps I’m not entirely unclear. Eurytus cited Melville’s Ahab as a psychologically deep character – but Ahab isn’t particularly complicated (nor is he, incidentally, drawn using the “internal” method). My intention is not to center the conversation around a particular character – other examples may be cited, I’m sure – but rather to ask whether depth and complexity are necessarily related. For the record, I understand “show” versus “tell” in the same way that Helen uses it: when something comes out through monologue, including internal monologue, that’s telling the audience. When information or character is revealed through action, that’s showing the audience. Incidentally, I think the “show don’t tell” rule is a bit overworked by some writing instructors, but that’s neither here nor there. EDITED to make my tongue-twister a bit more clear. [ November 19, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]