Visible souls....

[littlemanpoet]

If Tom is Middle Earth, why does he have such narrow borders?

[Aiwendil]

Lyta_Underhill wrote:

Things that would seem metaphorical in this universe are valid concerns and show themselves in concrete ways that would not occur in the primary world. Thus, the light is an aspect of Frodo's soul, externalized in the secondary world, whereas it would not be visible in the primary world and we would rather think him crazy, as we can't see his motivation.

Yes, this makes a lot of sense, and I think it is largely correct. But allow me to play the contrarian. My questions is this: supposing that LotR were exactly the same except that the instances of the visible appearance of light around Frodo were excised. Would this Frodo no longer be a "visible soul" type character? If all it means to say that a character is a visible soul is that in a few instances some external sign of that character's soul becomes apparent - that is, if by removing a few lines from the book, we change a visible soul into an ordinary character - then it seems to me that the concept is a rather superficial one. Is there not some deeper way in which the characterization in LotR fits a visible soul model, of which the light around Frodo is only a symptom?

littlemanpoet: Your definition is good, but it brings to mind another question. Is there a difference between the notion of characters as visible souls and the idea of external characterization as opposed to internal (which has been discussed in a few other threads)? Or to put it another way - is there a difference between the nature of the characters and the techniques of portrayal of the characters?

On the surface, it seems that there is. One can imagine an author inventing a character and then portraying him or her via the internal method, wherein the characters thoughts are directly told. Or one can imagine an author taking the very same character and instead using the external method of characterization, where the character's thoughts are not directly told, but his or her actions imply certain things about the psyche. And in view of this, it seems that it's not really so accurate to speak of characters being "visible souls" - rather the notion of the visible soul refers only to the techniques used to portray that character to the audience.

But I think there's a complication; it's not clear that there really is a significant difference between the nature and the portrayal of a character. For of course, the character is not "real". I don't mean this metaphysically, but rather in the obvious sense - there are facts about Beethoven that are not contained anywhere in his biography, but there are no facts about Frodo that are not contained in the texts written by Tolkien. Frodo, or any character, is defined by the things written about him. So in a sense, his nature is synonymous with his portrayal - or, if not synonymous, at least closely related. Looking at it this way, one could perhaps say that the idea method of external characterization, in itself a technique of portrayal, has the effect that the nature of a character so portrayed is that of a "visible soul".

I have a feeling I'm babbling, and as I really don't know what to make of these questions myself, I'll desist. But I think they are interesting questions and worthy of some consideration.

Lalwende wrote:

Does this mean that Tom is quite literally a part of the very fabric of Arda?

This is the view I've always taken. It has always seemed to me that Tom is the most supremely natural character in the legendarium, in opposition to the artifice or craft represented by Feanor, Aule, Saruman, etc. It's an idea I kept harping on in the Book I Chapter 7 discussion.

Davem wrote:

I wonder, in the light of what we know about both the Moon & the Sun having 'indwelling' spirits - Tillion & Arien - whether Tom is the 'indwelling' spirit of Arda.

An interesting idea, but I think there are more differences than similarities between the roles of Arien and Tilion and of Tom. The moon and the sun were physically made by the Valar, and Arien and Tilion were needed for the specific tasks of steering those vessels. Arda itself (though designed by the Valar in their song) was brought into being before the Valar entered it. It's not at all clear what 'steering' function Arda might need, and in any case, Tom doesn't seem particularly interested in performing such a cosmic task. And littlemanpoet makes an excellent point:

If Tom is Middle Earth, why does he have such narrow borders?

[Lyta_Underhill]

If Tom is Middle Earth, why does he have such narrow borders?

Perhaps it is because, at least in my mind, Tom is not equated in scope but merely in nature to Arda. Just as a patch of earth can be known as earth, it both is and is not Earth, if you take my meaning. Perhaps he is so close to the stuff of Arda itself that he can be said to be indistinguishable in some characteristics. He is a "moss-gatherer," and thus is covered in the essence of Arda or is sinking into it, becoming "tree-ish" as the Ents might say, and thus he does not wander but has put down roots.

Would this Frodo no longer be a "visible soul" type character? If all it means to say that a character is a visible soul is that in a few instances some external sign of that character's soul becomes apparent - that is, if by removing a few lines from the book, we change a visible soul into an ordinary character - then it seems to me that the concept is a rather superficial one. Is there not some deeper way in which the characterization in LotR fits a visible soul model, of which the light around Frodo is only a symptom?

Indeed, Aiwendil, this is only an illustration, and I do not mean it to contain all of the variances of characterization. The light of Frodo is merely one aspect of this. lmp is on a good road to cataloging other aspects whereby this externalization is shown, but that also raises another question. Is this externalization merely symbolism made concrete? Is this not in the nature of myth itself? Perhaps this whole "visible soul" business is simply an aspect and "symptom" of a myth-based story, and that would explain the fact that Middle Earth is indeed a living character and shows these outward characteristics as much as any other moving character in the story. I think there was a thread long ago about weather in Middle Earth and how it reacted to the goings-on in Middle Earth in this external way, as if its very nature was symbolic of the political upheavals of the more humanoid residents of Middle Earth.

How many hroa-less Elves could dance on the head of a pin?

Trust davem to actually make what seems like an absurd point of theology sound so relevant!

Cheers!
Lyta

[davem]

Originally Posted by LmP

If Tom is Middle Earth, why does he have such narrow borders?

Fractals again?

Perhaps 'Tom Bombadil' is simply that aspect of the spirit of Arda made manifest in that particular time & place? Dion Fortune famously wrote 'All the gods are One God'......

[littlemanpoet]

Is there a difference between [1] the notion of characters as visible souls and [2] the idea of external characterization as opposed to internal (which has been discussed in a few other threads)? Or to put it another way - is there a difference between the nature of the characters and the techniques of portrayal of the characters? - Aiwendil

I had to reread your question a number of times! Not least to discern how they were two ways of asking the same thing! Allow me to analyze the question(s).

Regarding the second, I would distinguish between the techniques and portrayal. Techniques are just tools, and not the only, in portrayal. Art includes technique, but is not limited to it, especially in terms of meaning; and meaning is at the heart of your question and the topic of this thread, I think.

So whereas techniques are used to portray characters, that is not the sum of the portrayal. Significantly, the portrayal may not be the sum of the character as sub-created in the mind of the author. Thus far we have not even considered the reader's interaction with the story! (Nor will I for now; I think that discussion belongs to the Canonicity thread.) So, does the nature of the character reside in the mind of the author, or in the written narrative? When that author dies, what then? The only answer I can arrive at would derive from Leaf by Niggle; that which was in the mind of the subcreator was taken up into the creation of the Creator, and both subcreator and his subcreation are in the mind of the Creator and find joy therein.

It seems I've gone beyond your question into my own. It also seems to me that I needed to do so in order to answer yours.

I would say that there is a difference; but technique, though only a part of the whole, is essential to bringing the whole to realization in narrative.

Perhaps it is because, at least in my mind, Tom is not equated in scope but merely in nature to Arda. Just as a patch of earth can be known as earth, it both is and is not Earth, if you take my meaning. Perhaps he is so close to the stuff of Arda itself that he can be said to be indistinguishable in some characteristics. He is a "moss-gatherer," and thus is covered in the essence of Arda or is sinking into it, becoming "tree-ish" as the Ents might say, and thus he does not wander but has put down roots. - Lyta Underhill

What precisely 's the difference between scope and nature, the way you're using the terms? It's a good try, but it seems to me that you're confounding some things that deserve to be distinguished, such as Tom Bombadil as a living, breathing being walking and dancing on the face of Arda rather than as a kind of projection of Arda. With the "moss-gatherer" quote, I think you're stretching a metaphor to its breaking point. On the other hand, I like how you're pointing to a broken unity in the term, 'earth'.

Is this externalization merely symbolism made concrete? Is this not in the nature of myth itself? Perhaps this whole "visible soul" business is simply an aspect and "symptom" of a myth-based story, and that would explain the fact that Middle Earth is indeed a living character and shows these outward characteristics as much as any other moving character in the story.

Yes, it is in the nature of myth. You are, again, referring to mythic unities, as I call them. The word "symptom" makes me cringe a little - I would use a word like "attribute" myself, seeing how symptom connotes disease...

Fractals again?- davem

How you mean this is beyond me!

Perhaps 'Tom Bombadil' is simply that aspect of the spirit of Arda made manifest in that particular time & place? Dion Fortune famously wrote 'All the gods are One God'......

No. I don't think this is the right direction. It seems you're taking the myth in directions that don't fit well.

[The Saucepan Man]

I've been enjoying this discussion on the sidelines, but ...

Originally Posted by lmp

No. I don't think this is the right direction. It seems you're taking the myth in directions that don't fit well.

Why so? There are precedents within myth of the "Spirit of the Earth" being delineated (at least to observers) in time and space. I am thinking here of the examples that Lalwendë touched upon, such as Herne the Hunter and the Green Man.

In fact, to an observer who, him or herself, is fixed in time and space, how could such a spirit not also appear to them to be so delineated?

[littlemanpoet]

No. I don't think this is the right direction. It seems you're taking the myth in directions that don't fit well.

Why so? There are precedents within myth of the "Spirit of the Earth" being delineated (at least to observers) in time and space. I am thinking here of the examples that Lalwendë touched upon, such as Herne the Hunter and the Green Man. In fact, to an observer who, him or herself, is fixed in time and space, how could such a spirit not also appear to them to be so delineated? - The Saucepan Man

The precedents lie outside Tolkien's legendarium. By this I mean that whereas there were benighted Men in Middle Earth who no doubt believed such things (and those in this Earth who do or did), those who had been exposed the Light of the West would know the truth as delivered to them, whether by the Elf-friends who received it from the Eldar, who received it from the Valar, who received it from Eru. If, by chance, Tom Bombadil is a Maiar (not saying I believe this), then he has the ability to take human form.

If people want to export Tom Bombadil to their own mythmaking, they need take no regard for the laws of Ëa. In the meantime, Tolkien's subcreation is clear on this point.

As to my liking it, or being touched by it, that is different from acknowledging that such was Tolkien's meaning. Tolkien did say that Tom Bombadil is the embodiment of the spirit of the Westmidlands and Oxfordshire, but that doesn't necesarilly tell us much about his place in Middle Earth. He is a mystery within a myth. I can see Goldberry's place a little more clearly, as she is a river daughter, and Tolkien wrote more in depth of the ways of the Sea and the Rivers of Arda.

[Aiwendil]

littlemanpoet wrote:

. Significantly, the portrayal may not be the sum of the character as sub-created in the mind of the author. Thus far we have not even considered the reader's interaction with the story! (Nor will I for now; I think that discussion belongs to the Canonicity thread.) So, does the nature of the character reside in the mind of the author, or in the written narrative? When that author dies, what then?

Ah, but already we are in Canonicity territory. Not all would agree that the mind of the author is of prime importance here. I think that if we pressed the issue here, we would find exactly the same party lines drawn: those for whom the "canon" has to do with the author, those for whom it is the text, and those the reader.

Still, I don't think that it's necessary to enter into that again. You say:

Regarding the second, I would distinguish between the techniques and portrayal.

And, despite my purely text-based approach to canon, I think I agree with you. Frodo could be portrayed this way or that, and yet remain the same character - just as a director may shoot a scene from one angle or another without altering the supposed facts of the situation.

But that brings us to a problem with your definition of a "visible soul" character. Your criteria are:

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

These sound more like techniques of portrayal than characteristics of the characters themselves. And in fact, they sound very much like the "external characterization" discussed in the psychological depth thread among others.