Visible souls....

[Firefoot]

I think that it is a real testament to Tolkien's skill at characterization that he could make this style work. I don't need to be inside of Frodo's head to understand what he is feeling, going through, etc. (Same for the other main characters.) I have a very clear idea of these things already by how the characters act, what they say, etc. I doubt very many authors would be able to pull this off. Also interesting is that even though we don't know precisely what the characters are thinking, LotR often draws a much more emotional reaction to the characters than the vast majority of books I have read. Perhaps this is because Tolkien leaves more to the imagination than most other books. In some ways this can be more personal to the individual because in realizing these characters thoughts and feelings we can apply our own past situations to theirs.

[drigel]

The imagined beings have their inside on the outside; they are visible souls

I think Lewis is referring to a spiritual state rather than a literay device.
think deeper

[Child of the 7th Age]

Formendacil -

That's an interesting point you've made: that in real life we don't get inside anyone's head. Rather, we get to know people and make our judgments by observing and talking with them. Tolkien's narrative essentially gives us a chance to do that in the context of Middle-earth, since we rarely know what a particular character is thinking. Instead, we have to use our brains and native instincts to try and figure out what really lies behind a particular action or the words that come out of a character's mouth.

There is, I think, one other device Tolkien uses to reveal the souls of his characters without actual stating what is going on inside their heads. We're frequently given the chance to look through the eyes of another character in the book and share his observations. This particularly seems the case in regard to Frodo. There are two passages that are among my favorites. In both scenes, the reader gains a moving glimpse of Frodo through the eyes of a companion. It is essentially a glimpse of some unseen battles being fought there.

The first occurs in Rivendell where Frodo is recovering from his wound. Frodo wakes up and finds Gandalf sitting in his room. The two begin to talk. But in the middle of the conversation we are told that Gandalf came closer to the bed to observe the hobbit and noted "a hint of as it were of transparency" about Frodo, "and especially about the left hand that lay outside the coverlet." Gandalf suddenly begins speaking not to Frodo, but to himself.

Still that must be expected. He is not half through yet , and to what he will come in the end not even Elrond can foretell. Not to evil, I think. He may become like a glass filled with a clear light for eyes to see that can.

The second incident is in the chapter "Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit." This time, Samwise is the observer and Frodo is asleep. Sam remembers seeing Frodo asleep in Rivendell when he had watched over him as he lay in bed gravely wounded:

Then as he had kept watch Sam had noticed that at times a light seemed to be shining faintly within; but now the light was even clearer and stronger. Frodo's face was peaceful, the marks of fear and care had left it; but it looked old, old and beautiful, as if the chiselling of the shaping years was now revealed in many fine lines that had before been hidden, though the identity of the face was not changed. Not that Sam Gamgee put it that wayto himself. He shook his head, as if finding words useless, and murmurred, "I love him. He's like that, and sometimes it shines through, somehow. But I love him, whether or no."

In both passages, we learn something about the narrator--in one case Gandalf and in the other Samwise. But we are given even more insights into Frodo. The final sentence in Gandalf's quotation is, in effect, comparing Frodo with the Phial of Galadriel: "a glass filled with a clear light". In the second, what is striking uis that Frodo's face looked fine and old and etched with wrinkles. By all reckoning, this should not be happening to Frodo: the power of the Ring is such as to make one unnaturally young, taut, and stretched. But apparently there are other things going on underneath that Sam and Gandalf describe for us.

This isn't just a case of discerning psychological motives; it literally gives us a glimpse of Frodo's soul.

Drigel - I certainly agree that Lewis was referring to a moral or spiritual state when he uses a term like "visible souls". And I think the two passages mentioned above are clear instances of that. These are not the only ones that could be cited, just two of my favorites. A lot of Aragorn's characterization is also accomplished this way.

I do think both avenues are worthy of attention. By searching out and studying a "literary device", we have an idea how Tolkien technically achieved what he wanted to do. By looking at what is actually contained in those passages, we invariably run into the element that you describe as a "spritual state".


Firefoot - The whole idea of blank spaces is fascinating. Tolkien seems to have been strangely attracted to blank spaces as a way to encourage readers to use their imaginations!

We've been told time and time again that perhaps one of the reasons JRRT didn't finish Silm is that he couldn't bear to fill in all those mysterious blank spaces that existed in the LotR narrative. In the Letters, Tolkien talks about the reader's joy in seeing a distant mountain where you can only make out the barest of outlines. It is grand and mysterious, and only half understood. By publishing Silm, he would be dispelling some of that mystery: the half-understood vistas would be filled in.

LotR is full of stories and allusions that the reader will only half comprehend unless he/she has read and understood the wider Legendarium. Apparently, part of Tolkien wanted to leave it that way. That's quite an extraordinary sentiment to express when so much of his earlier energies had been devoted to trying to get the thing finished and published!

What your own statement suggests is that JRRT's love of mysterious blanks went beyond history to the characters themselves. By drawing down a discreet veil over inner thoughts, he in effect created internal "blanks" over which the reader could ponder at length. It was essentially the same technique that he used to lay bare tiny slivers of history, but never the whole thing. I've never heard it expressed quite this way before...

[Lalwendë]

We have talked in several threads about how modern fiction focuses on the interior of the character rather than the story itself. We are led inside the characters' heads to understand the individual's conflicting desires and psychological motives.

I think that sometimes it is a bit of a myth that all modern fiction focusses on the psychological motives of characters. What in reality tends to happen is that it focusses on the psychological motives of one or maybe two main characters, the protagonists. And in LotR it would be difficult to identify a definite protagonist. If we had to choose, then it might well be Frodo as the tale is at its heart the story of his journey to Mordor and his mission. When we do see interior insights then these do tend to be of Frodo. We see his dreams quite regularly, and what could be more personal than that?

LotR has a whole multitude of characters, so we do not need to see their interior thoughts as much as we would if it was a novel focussing on only a handful of characters; there is much opportunity to demonstrate motives and characteristics through dialogue and reactions of the many other characters. If it were just about Frodo, or even just about the Fellowship then we would need to have more interior thoughts written about as there would be less chance to have these represented by the multitudes of other people.

It is also a tale of action and movement, in contrast to what might be the polar opposite, Virginia Woolf, who writes of personal thoughts, feelings and reactions. LotR is in effect a pro-active work, while Woolf's work is reactive.

As for visible souls - I think every character in literature is in some way a 'visible soul'. We see more of literary characters than we could ever hope to see of our fellow human beings. But what intrigues me is the question of whether these souls are really aspects of the writer's soul becoming manifest on the page?

[Encaitare]

I was terribly bored the other day, and discovered on the shelf in my basement a curious-looking book, entitled Man's Seach for Meaning by one Viktor E. Frankl. Being of a philosophical mind when the notion strikes me, I picked it up and read it through until I finished at 1 AM (much to my chagrin when I had to get up for school several hours later!). Yet in the morning I started thinking about what I had read, and surprisingly got some coherent thought out of my early-morning musings.

The author of the book was a psychologist who was put in a concentration camp during WWII. The first half of the book outlines his experiences and impressions, as well as notes of his feelings and the behavior of those around him. Through these experiences, he developed what he calls "logotherapy," and explains as pychological therapy by finding meaning in life and actions.

Most of the book was pretty interesting, but otherwise irrelevant to LotR. One section stood out to me, though, towards the end when I was getting bleary-eyed but determined to finish. Frankl says that oftentimes, people apply stereotypes to others, applying the term "pan-determinism" to this idea that people will always react in a given way due to their conditioning, personalities, or previous actions. He denounces this, saying:

Man does not simply exist, but always decides what his existence will be, what he will become in the next moment. By the same token, every human being has the freedom to change at any instant. ... One of the main features of human existence in the capacity to rise above such conditions and transcend them.

As recently discussed, we are not given the ability to see into the characters of LotR, yet we feel as though we have known them forever by the time the story is over. We can be almost positive about what many of the characters will do in a given circumstance, perhaps with the exception of Gollum. Gollum, I think, is the best example of Frankl's view; he has the ability to change or repent, and very nearly does once. However, most of the characters go through changes which are not complete turnarounds for them -- they grow rather than be altered.

Frankl goes on to cite an example of a doctor who worked fanatically for the Nazis, but later in life was reported to be "the best comrade you can image," who "lived up to the highest conceivable moral standard." Does this sort of thing happen all the time? Probably not, nor does it really occur in LotR. The characters are the visible souls, or perhaps embodiments of virtues: Sam, for example, is practically the embodiment of loyalty.

Child wrote:

And then there is that intriguing question that Lewis himself raises at the end of his quote: "And Man as a whole, Man pitted against the Universe, have we seen him at all till we see that he is like a hero in a fairy tale?" Is this true, and is this why so many folk are endlessly drawn back into the story? Can we even understand ourselves as individuals unless we too regard ourselves as heroes in a fairy tale?

Again I will draw from another of Frankl's ideas: that suffering can be noble and made less miserable if one has something for which he is truly willing to suffer (this does not mean that one ought to make a martyr of himself for no reason). The characters of LotR go through a great deal, and through this are laid bare to us. They manage to rise above their hardships and triumph, though, and we see that it all was worth it in the end. Frankl says that sometimes to suffer is to spare one you love from suffering, and this makes it bearable. We can see this in Frodo, who has to experience horrors in order to save the rest of Middle-earth.

EDIT: Perhaps we see these individuals who risk everything in pursuit of a mission, goal, or belief, and it helps us strengthen our own resolve. It certainly is a comforting thought to realize that the struggle can be worth it in the end. Also, in response to Child's last question, regarding ourselves as "heroes in a fairy tale" could make things easier for us. Although in LotR there is some doubt among certain characters about the right choice of action (such as Aragorn at Amon Hen), many of the characters, as well as those in other such tales, often seem to have this unshakable will and understanding of what they must do. Perhaps it is that we wish we had this ability to know ourselves well enough to be so sure in our actions. Fairy tale heroes can be great warriors or little hobbits; either way, they demonstrate valor, courage, loyalty, and many other virtues, all the best qualities of people. They may have a fatal flaw, but they still are good people, and readers want to see them triumph.If we regard ourselves as these fairy tale characters we may find that we too try to live up to these virtues, thinking more of our actions in the big scheme of things. I don't know if imagining oneself as a fairy tale hero is a logical or sensible thing to do, but if it makes you a better person then I'm all for it.