![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
![]() |
#11 | |||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
![]()
Saucepan Man:
You suggest that a distinction be made between "psychological depth" and "characterization". That's a matter of definition and, since all definitions are arbitrary, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. But one must follow it with the question: how useful or interesting is this definition? If psychological depth is to be understood as something like the "internal characterization" I discussed earlier in the thread, then it seems quite correct to say "Tolkien's characters generally lack psychological depth". But I have two reservations about stating this and considering the whole business finished. First of all, as you point out, this sounds like a criticism but need not be one. I agree with what you say here: Quote:
So, to sum up: it is first of all not correct to insist that all literature should be primarily concerned with character; it is also not correct to insist that all characterization be achieved by means of the internal method. The second reason I hesitate to be satisfied with "Tolkien's characters generally lack psychological depth", even given the refined definition, is that I'm not sure to what extent the "psychological depth" aspect of characterization may be distinguished from other aspects. I agree with: Quote:
Moreover, I think that readers do not sharply distinguish between the psychological aspect of characterization and the other aspects. To some extent, all of these things are tributary to the big picture: the character as a concept, as a perception on the part of the reader. Perhaps I can make an analogy to psychology. One approach might be called behaviorist, focusing on the external actions of humans, and their reactions to external stimuli. In this kind of approach, terms like "anger" refer to patterns of external behavior, with no reference to the internal. A person is angry if they act in certain ways (like yelling, being rude, etc.). In what might be called the cognitive approach, the focus is on the internal. Here, "anger" refers to a certain neurological state, with no reference to the external. But of course in the end both approaches are talking about the same thing, just in different ways. So is it really all that significant that we come to know Hurin primarily through his actions, while we (presumably) come to know Pullman's characters through direct inspection of their thoughts? The result is largely the same: we come to know the character. Of course, there are differences in the result - but I think that there are also very important similarities. In some cases, of course, the very fact that the characterization is achieved by the internal technique is significant, most often in modern literature. For example, in Crime and Punishment the dichotomy between the internal and the external is of central importance. But this is a sophisticated way of wielding the internal technique, and a special case. Quote:
It is a feature of Tolkien's world that there are really, unambiguously good people, really, unambiguously evil people, and people in between. One may well question whether this is true of the real world. But one cannot question whether it is true of Tolkien's world. That's simply the way it is. I don't know how to inquire any further into the question of whether this state of affairs is believable. Certainly it is not inconsistent with the rest of Tolkien's mythology. Certainly it is believable enough to have been used in other great literature (like the Aeneid or the Bible). |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |