Psychological depth in Tolkien's characters

[The Saucepan Man]

I think that the problem with defining what is meant here by 'depth' is that we have no exposition of Pullman's opinion

My own view on what Pullman meant by "psychological depth" has been formed by reference to what I understand (from what others have said) to be his own style of writing, and the fact that he uses Gollum as an example of a character that he does consider to have psychological depth. It seems to me that he is talking about getting inside a character's head and understanding how they tick.

But you are right, Squatter. We cannot be certain what he meant. Nevertheless, it is still, I think, interesting to analyse the psychological depth of Tolkien's characterisation, however we may choose to define that term. My own analysis is by reference to my understanding of what Pullman meant by "psychological depth". But any analysis by reference to a different understanding of that term is equally valid, and will still help to cast light on Tolkien's style of characterisation. And I am certainly not seeking to restrict anyone here to sticking to my own understanding of the term, or even their understanding of what Pullman may have meant.

Detailed journeys through a character's mind are inappropriate in a work of very wide physical or temporal scope unless one wants to write the sort of book more suited to weightlifting than reading.

Agreed. As I have said, I do not see it as a criticism of Tolkien that some of his principal characters lack (what I would consider to be) psychological depth. But, as I have also sought to explain, I nevertheless think that it is there in some of the characters.

For me, an explicit journey into Aragorn's head would be like Elrond going into a detailed description of Túrin's nature and deeds when he mentions him at the end of The Council of Elrond. Why bother, Tolkien appears to think, when one can show the reader what they need to know to understand the character as the narrative unfolds?

Precisely. We learn exactly what we need to learn about Aragorn for the purposes of the story as the story develops. It gives him chracterisation, but I am still doubtful that it gives him any great psychological depth.

Your example of Aragorn singing of Beren and Luthien to the Hobbits, Squatter, does, I think give us some understanding of Aragorn's mind. However, such glimpses are rare. We do not get inside Aragorn's mind to the same extent that we do with, say, Sam or Gollum. But then we do not need to understand precisely what it is that he is thinking at every stage. Nor do we need to know exactly how he is analysing and reacting to every event as it unfolds. We learn just as much as we need in order to understand his role and significance within the story.

As for Hurin (and Huor) we can certainly understand from what they say at the Nirnaeth Arnoediad why it is that they fight the rearguard action to help Turgon and his host escape the battle. But I do not feel that this particular episode gives them any great psychological depth as characters. We can understand their motivation, but we do not really get into their minds any more than that. Again, we do not need to.

Having said that, however, I do feel that we gain a greater understanding of Hurin's state of mind during his subsequent interrogation and incarceration by Morgoth. We see his obdurate nature in his defiance and mockery of Morgoth and we can gain a sense of the emotional turmoil that he must have been going through, and the complete horror that he must have experienced on watching the systematic destruction of those nearest to him. Although we are never given any detailed exposition of his thoughts, we can understand why he is a broken man, and why he acts in the way that he does, when Morgoth finally releases him.

Interesting also that you mention Maeglin for I see him as character who holds greater psychological interest. Then again, that's harking back to my view that characters who are in turmoil in some way, or who are morally ambiguous, are the most interesting characters on a psychological level, which may (as has been suggested) simply be a matter of taste.

Turning to Legolas and Gimli, the passages that you have quoted, Squatter, are nice ones, and they do admittedly give us a glimpse of what these characters are thinking. Although perhaps they tell us more about the nature of their respective races, which is something that I think Tolkien was trying to achieve in his characterisation of Legolas and Gimli. Passages such as this do, of course give them some psychological depth. As you say:

we need to know that it is there if we are to feel for those characters at all.

But, as you also say, it does not come out often. And so, I cannot see these two characters as being distinguished by their psychological depth. They are not greatly developed as characters (in comparison to other characters in the story), save as representatives of their respective races, but, again, they do not need to be.

If one thinks as Tolkien does, this will cause his characters to resonate deeply; if, as in the case of Pullman, one's mind works differently, the same characters may seem undeveloped and thin.

I think that this takes us back to characterisation on a more general level. Clearly, Tolkien's characters resonate with all of us here, otherwise we would not be here. If we did not care about the characters, we would not care about their story. But I don't think that they necessarily require any great psychological depth for us to resonate with them.

In addition, of course, we will all resonate to varying degrees with different characters in Tolkien's works. Some will identify more with those characters that are drawn with greater psychological depth (in the sense that I am using that term). Others will prefer those that are principally characterised in different ways.

As for "detailed exposition", I agree that this is not necessary to give characters psychological depth. Examples have been given throughout this thread of characters who are given psychological depth (to varying degrees) by reference to external factors (Denethor and Eowyn spring to mind).

Maybe writers who can only use detailed exposition to get their point across are less talented (although not necessarily less successful, as Lush points out). But Squatter is right to make the point that certain types of novel require that the writer employs this style in order to achieve what he or she has set out to achieve. 1984 is certainly a good example of this, since we need to understand the effects of the events experienced by Winston Smith on his psychological state. This would be impossible without a good degree of internal characterisation. Another good example of this is The Magus by John Fowles, which also explores the effect of psychological manipulation on the mind of the protagonist (and is an excellent book, for those who have not read it).

But I must take issue with this statement, phantom:

"Detailed exploration" is necessary to give a character depth only when ... the reader is not talented enough to pick up on textual clues or come to any sort of conclusion without the author specifically telling them to.

You seems to to be saying that a reader who does not pick up an every textual clue left by the author is somehow less talented than a reader who analyses each passage for every subtle nuance that might be present. But I do not think that you can judge the reader's quality as a reader on this basis. Nor do I think that a reader who picks up less of the textual nuances necessarily requires detailed exposition in order for them to enjoy their reading experience.

For example, I probably gained a much greater understanding of the characters and events of LotR when I re-read it recently than when I first read it aged 11. But I also probably lost some of the magic that I experienced the first time round. Both reading experiences were different: the first was more emotional, the second more intellectual. But I would not judge one as better than the other. Nor would I say that I am any more talented now as a reader than I was when I was 11. I was simply a slightly different kind of reader.