Visible souls....

[Aiwendil]

I'm a little wary about entering into a discussion that has taken such a pronounced spiritual/religious turn. But Child's original question intrigues me. Do characters in a myth "wear their souls on the outside" as it were? That is, do they manifest outwardly what are ordinarily (in real life perhaps, or in more modern fiction) internal traits?

In a way, this seems like a candidate for a definition of the mythical - that is, a myth is a story that transfers internal phenomena into external phenomena. This is in line with the Jungian archetypes and Campbell's monomyth. So we might say, for example, that Shelob is an external manifestation of certain innate human fears.

The idea is attractive, but when one considers individual characters - Frodo, Gollum, Boromir, etc. - it starts to become unclear (to me, at least) how exactly they have their souls on the outside. To put it another way - given two characters, one with and one without this externalization of the psyche, how can we distinguish them? How would Frodo be different if he did not manifest his psyche outwardly?

I cannot think of a good answer to this. Yet I still find the idea intriguing. Can anyone present a satisfactory account of what in practice, in literary terms, it means for a character's sould to be visible?

[Lyta_Underhill]

Lalwendë: I like the way you bring in Frodo here. In Frodo we can see the beginnings of what happened to Gollum, but I do question how much of the effects can be down to the innate qualities of both Gollum and Frodo, as ultimately, the effects are the same, this 'evil' corrupts anyone who succumbs, no matter how good their intentions are.

Indeed it seems that the effects of the Quest and bearing the Ring have an equal, opposite effect on Frodo, and his visible soul, as it were, becomes the clear light that shines more evidently as he struggles against the Ring. Contrasting Frodo and Gollum in this way, it seems to me that not only are the characters imbued with visible souls but so is the entire landscape and all of the reality of Middle Earth. It is mythical, and thus it has a way or intention. Frodo's entire life energy is expended to enhance that way, to enrich the very fabric of Middle Earth, while Gollum chooses the path of decay, the inward-turning rather than outward looking that davem mentions above. His energies are directed against the best interests of the very land he lives on, and thus he is doomed. It seems almost a Taoist conceit I'm having here...but perhaps I can in a small way address Aiwendil's questions of the manifestation of outwardness.

Aiwendil: To put it another way - given two characters, one with and one without this externalization of the psyche, how can we distinguish them? How would Frodo be different if he did not manifest his psyche outwardly?

Perhaps Frodo would not shine with a visible, perceptible light that is noticed by at least two other characters; perhaps his singular purpose would be cast in another light, the light of those who do not see the cohesive principle of Middle Earth. To a modern Earthling, perhaps Frodo is in the grip of a psychosis. Believes he's the only one who can save Middle Earth, eh? Well, its a big place and it will take care of itself, and anyone who has such thoughts must have a screw loose...etc. etc. Perhaps the externalization is in the structure and focus on the reality of the myth. One step beyond "magic realism."

I'd say more, but since I've lost the train of thought, I hope this will make sense for now!
Cheers!
Lyta

P.S. (You knew I'd do it...I just can't seem to quit!) Another thought on Gollum: it seems to my memory that this visibility is pointed out more intentionally by Tolkien in Frodo's character, and that there is outward ambiguity in Gollum's outward affect, and this ambiguity is most pronounced when we look at Gollum through Frodo's eyes, as if Frodo is "looking into the dark" when he considers Smeagol/Gollum. It does seem there is an answer in the divide between Gollum and Frodo, or perhaps Gollum is seen in a referential manner with regard to the way he is drawn by Gandalf and Aragorn, or the one-sided way he is judged by Sam (who himself is VERY tight with Middle Earth!) and this is contrasted continuously with a moment to moment reality through Frodo's experience of the creature himself...as if Gollum is an alien to the harmonic myth of Middle Earth and Frodo is that myth reaching out to him...I fear I have gone too far off the track and the only reason I don't delete this last bit is maybe it will make sense to someone out there! (Or maybe it is because my own point of view seems to inevitably proceed from Frodo's eyes--I'm sure that has something to do with the thoughts above.)

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Lyta_Underhill

perhaps his singular purpose would be cast in another light, the light of those who do not see the cohesive principle of Middle Earth. To a modern Earthling, perhaps Frodo is in the grip of a psychosis. Believes he's the only one who can save Middle Earth, eh? Well, its a big place and it will take care of itself, and anyone who has such thoughts must have a screw loose...etc. etc.

This is a really interesting point. I have heard people discussing what would have happened to a figure like Jesus were he around today, and the conclusion is usually that just as he was viewed then, he would probably be viewed today. We humans seem to be cynical and untrusting far too often, and we do not like anyone or anything which seems to have a 'higher' purpose we cannot immediately understand or see the immediate gains to be made from. In Middle Earth things are different (but not always in the Shire, interestingly, thinking about the gossips and their tales of Bilbo and Frodo). is this because Frodo's mission is with the common purpose, or is it because such mythical intentions are acceptable?

Originally Posted by Lyta_Underhill

Contrasting Frodo and Gollum in this way, it seems to me that not only are the characters imbued with visible souls but so is the entire landscape and all of the reality of Middle Earth. It is mythical, and thus it has a way or intention.

This is reflected in how the ancients viewed thair landscape and surroundings. There are many 'spiritual' landscapes to be found in the UK: the Hope valley in the Peak District, Salisbury Plain, and the area around Glastonbury Tor are just a few examples. These are landscapes invested with meaning and purpose; they have visible souls, as we can see the monuments built there and how the natural features interact with one another. Perhaps this is getting a bit weird, but it does have links to Middle Earth; the landscape there is clearly invested with meaning and history as much as it is in the mythical places in our world.

I'm glad you brought that one up anyway, as I'm one of those readers who sees the land of Arda as a character in its own right.

[Aiwendil]

Lyta_Underhill wrote:

Perhaps Frodo would not shine with a visible, perceptible light that is noticed by at least two other characters; perhaps his singular purpose would be cast in another light, the light of those who do not see the cohesive principle of Middle Earth. To a modern Earthling, perhaps Frodo is in the grip of a psychosis. Believes he's the only one who can save Middle Earth, eh? Well, its a big place and it will take care of itself, and anyone who has such thoughts must have a screw loose...etc. etc. Perhaps the externalization is in the structure and focus on the reality of the myth. One step beyond "magic realism."

This makes some sense. But is the "outwardness" of the characters' psyches then limited to this kind of "magic"? If we took away the perceptible light, would that make Frodo into the other kind of character? If so, then the outwardness would seem to be rather a superficial trait. What about other characters in LotR - I can think of no physical sign on the level of the light seen around Frodo in the case of Boromir, for instance.

As for the other part of your suggestion - that Frodo would be viewed by a modern as psychotic - it seems to me that this has less to do with the nature of mythical characters than with the nature of the mythical world. What I mean is that it is the nature of the world that Frodo is in that determines whether he is psychotic. If he is in a world like the real one, where it does not make sense that the great evil can be defeated by dropping a ring into a volcano, then his beliefs are delusional. But if he is in a world where exactly what he believes is true, then clearly he is not delusional. I don't think that this reflects any particular difference between one type of character and another.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Just occured to me: isn't it interesting that the first effect of the Ring is to make one invisible? It suggests that the evil of the Ring is one that manifests by obscuring or eradicating the 'outwardness' of a character, or one that works contratry to this idea of wearing one's soul on the outside. The Ring denies that possibility by removing the outward appearance and locking (even trapping) the wearer in an eternal hell of internal existence. Frodo's experience of being invisible is terribly isolating (he is "naked" and even more visible to those other inwardly self-directed beings Sauron and the Nazgul).

The lasting effect of the Ring upon Gollum is that his outwardness has all but gone: his appearance is wasted and withered, he prefers to keep in the dark, he speaks to himself and thinks only of his own desires.

The great evil of the Ring is that it makes one's outwardness invisible to oneself, forcing him or her into living out his or her life only inwardly???

herm hoom baroom. . .more coffee is needed. . .

[mark12_30]

still reading, but in response to Fordie's comment above: Some define the "soul" as intellect, emotions, and will, as opposed to spirit being the life that is given by God (some separate these, some don't) (breath, wind, pneuma-- see mystic unity thread).

"Soul" has all sorts of connotations, some positive, some negative; there are those who contrast "soulishness" (fleshly, burdensome) with "spirituality" (good)... the soul is to be stilled and quieted (Psalm... something) or tamed or decreased.

I suppose if we are talking about "Visible Souls", and the body becomes invisible, then one must wonder whether the soul-- intellect, emotions, will -- is disappearing.

Bilbo escaped this fate.

The ringwraiths, I think, didn't.

Does Frodo?

Am I subdividing this too much? Lewis might object to the interpretation. (Wasn't he Episcopalian... don't think they divide it like the evangelicals do... )

:crosseyed:

Fordie, where's the coffee?

[drigel]

so many connotations and every one a tangent to run with.

suppose if we are talking about "Visible Souls", and the body becomes invisible, then one must wonder whether the soul is disappearing.

What would that say about old Tom? enigma indeed

When I think about the ring, I remember what our hobbit mortal ringbearers saw when they put the ring on. I would interpret that the only thing the ringwraith's had, enslaved as it was, was a spririt. The ring, forged by a fallen angel, was a physical link to the unseen world, one's spirit being a part of that world. It gets fuzzy for me at this point. Is it the strength of one's mind or one's spirit that determines the (partial?) command of the ring?

Venti triple coffe mocha yumm

[Lalwendë]

The old brain cells are seriously depleted now, and I thought I had what Fordim says all 'sewn up' so to speak but now Drigel has thrown a spanner in the works of my brain:

Originally Posted by Drigel

What would that say about old Tom? enigma indeed

Well, as soon as I read what Fordim says about the effects of the Ring, I thought that it must be working to erode the physical, the Hroa, and making it so that a person was all soul or Fea. Literally, a visible soul! But, only visible to Sauron and those who bear the Rings invested with his power, the Ringwraiths. I can't locate the post now, but davem said recently that the Ringwraiths could be Hroa-less Fea. Perhaps the One Ring works in this way too? If Sauron invested it with some kind of power of osanwe, and likewise with the Nine Rings, then this would amke perfect sense. The bearer would be physically invisible, but entirely visible to Sauron; he would have lost his protective Hroa entirely and his Fea would be entirely visible. This could also explain the Light of Frodo. as his Hroa becomes eroded, his Light or Fea becomes more visible.

But what about Tom Bombadil? Does this mean he simply is not controllable in this way? Is he strong enough to resist what others, including the great and the good, cannot? Does he even have a Hroa to be eroded? And if not, then what plane does he exist upon?

Never mind coffee, I need something much stronger.

[littlemanpoet]

Can anyone present a satisfactory account of what in practice, in literary terms, it means for a character's sould to be visible? - Aiwendil

Thanks, Lyta, for your example of Frodo's light, which presented a category I had not accounted for in my little mock-up of a definition - or at least approach to one. Anyway.....

Indicators of a Visible Soul

1. A minimum of internal psychological processing by the character(s), whether in terms of thoughts, feelings, or dreams.

2. Character(s) appear as real, three-dimensional beings, almost always expressed through speech and behavior alone.

3. Internal attributes are evoked mythically according to the laws that govern the mythic setting: e.g.:

• dreams foretell real events
• White light indicates holiness, purity
• Green and yellow light indicates decay & corruption
• Red light indicates evil

In the above, I'm trying to account for various aspects of LotR, but also for applicability to other works.

Just a note on two- versus three- dimensionality: Those who assert that "visible soul" characterization is two-dimensional, are confusing internality with evocation of reality. When we see other people in the primary world but can't read their minds, we don't accuse them of being two-dimensional. We reserve such a pejorative for shallowness of character. Further, "visible soul" characterization, done well, is not the same as shallow characterization. It's not hard to perceive the difference between a real visible character from a cardboard cut-out.

[drigel]

lmp good synopsis
This characteristic is throughout LOTR, but it's description is very subtle. Mabye thats truly the only way for us mortals to discern it: in the corner of your eye, a quick, minute moment in time where one reaches a certain cognizance of the environment one is part of, and the souls that he shares it with.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Lyta_Underhill

But perhaps he is like Arda itself in that he is not affected by the temporal magic of the Ring. He, like the Earth itself, has great resistance to magic worked by individuals, even a great Maia like Sauron.

Does this mean that Tom is quite literally a part of the very fabric of Arda? If so it might tie in with my old ideas of him as relating to a figure such as The Green Man or the Horned God. But now my ideas have been turned all upside down since I read Osanwe-kenta, and I feel there must be something in the fact that The One Ring does not have any effect upon him.

If he is a Hroa-less Fea (phrase used with compliments to davem ) then how did the Hobbits see him? Was this the nature of the magic of the Old Forest? If it did indeed enable the Hobbits to 'see' that which is not normally seen then I like that chapter even more than ever!

But it's still all hurting my head and I can't quite decide...

Originally Posted by drigel

Mabye thats truly the only way for us mortals to discern it: in the corner of your eye, a quick, minute moment in time where one reaches a certain cognizance of the environment one is part of, and the souls that he shares it with.

This brings to mind the Laws and Customs section of Morgoth's Ring - Vol. 10 (I think) of HoME. In this it talks of what happens when an Elf's Hroa eventually burns away leaving them as a houseless Fea, wandering the earth. These would be visible to other Elves, and possibly to mortals, and there is a particularly beautiful passage in there relating to this.

[littlemanpoet]

If he is a Hroa-less Fea (phrase used with compliments to davem ) then how did the Hobbits see him? Was this the nature of the magic of the Old Forest? If it did indeed enable the Hobbits to 'see' that which is not normally seen then I like that chapter even more than ever! - Lalwendë

This particular question reminds me of the medieval scholars in earnest discussion regarding how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

Maybe I'm revealing my ignorance of this now famous osanwe document, but it seems to me that the best reading of any narrative written by Tolkien (or any storyteller for that matter) is to take it the way he wrote it rather than to speculate things that are not there. Hence, since the hobbits could see Tom Bombadil, he could not have been a hroa-less fea.

Does this mean that Tom is quite literally a part of the very fabric of Arda? If so it might tie in with my old ideas of him as relating to a figure such as The Green Man or the Horned God. - Lalwendë

Now, this seems much more likely to me. It's of a piece with how Tolkien wrote Tom and Goldberry, don't you think? I like your "old ideas" just fine.