Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
11-19-2003, 08:17 PM | #81 |
Dread Horseman
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Behind you!
Posts: 2,743
|
Great posts all around.
After reading Saucepan’s last, though, I wonder if it might not be worthwhile to make a distinction between psychological depth and psychological complexity. Saucepan’s definition of the former seems to require the latter, but if I’m reading you right, Sauce, I don’t agree. I relate “depth” more with a certain profoundness or intensity, but not necessarily with complication. Which is not to say that a character cannot be both psychologically deep and complex, but I don’t think that depth proceeds naturally from complexity or vice versa. I’m pulling a bit of mental tongue-twister there, but perhaps I’m not entirely unclear. Eurytus cited Melville’s Ahab as a psychologically deep character – but Ahab isn’t particularly complicated (nor is he, incidentally, drawn using the “internal” method). My intention is not to center the conversation around a particular character – other examples may be cited, I’m sure – but rather to ask whether depth and complexity are necessarily related. For the record, I understand “show” versus “tell” in the same way that Helen uses it: when something comes out through monologue, including internal monologue, that’s telling the audience. When information or character is revealed through action, that’s showing the audience. Incidentally, I think the “show don’t tell” rule is a bit overworked by some writing instructors, but that’s neither here nor there. EDITED to make my tongue-twister a bit more clear. [ November 19, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ] |
11-19-2003, 08:46 PM | #82 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|
11-19-2003, 09:36 PM | #83 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
The Saucepan Man wrote:
Quote:
You quoted only half of my essential point above. What I said was: Quote:
You chose the second definition, which, I think, is a perfectly good one. |
||
11-20-2003, 04:08 AM | #84 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Saucepanman, Perhaps the problem is that in Faramir (the real one) we are seeing him after his struggle. His decision is made. The things he says reveal he is not someone who has just decided to be 'good'. He has thought through his position. The problem with the approach of the filmwriters is that they bring all the characters down to the level of Boromir - 'What should I do?'. Faramir, Aragorn, et al, have progressed beyond Boromir - probably if Boromir had survived, & passed the test he would have been the 'Faramir' we meet in Ithilien. I'm not saying the movie Faramir is not believeable - I don't think he's 'deeper' or more 'complex'. He's more like us. But he's not inspiring - well, not to me, anyway. I find his cowardlyness - the way he won't look while his men are beating up Gollum, holding his sword to the throat of an unarmed, frightened, exhausted prisoner - disconcerting in a 'good' character, to say the least.
In Tolkien's world we are presented with characters at different stages of development. Some are struggling to decide what's right, others are struggling to do what they have decided is the right thing. If we limit our definition of what constitutes depth to the former, then we simply miss the depth of the latter. |
11-20-2003, 03:01 PM | #85 | ||||
Fair and Cold
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Psychological depth isn't about how dirty or debased or corrupt or bored or drunk a character is. When I say that Tolkien's character's lack it, I am not implying that for me psychological depth involves having Aragorn battling an existential despair that gets triggered by acid flash-backs or Arwen finding herself confused by her feelings of lust for Glorfindel while her man is away. I am implying that if Tolkien wanted to explore the human psyche in the LOTR, he wasn't entirely succesful, though his work is incredibly psychologically stimulating in of itself. Quote:
[ November 20, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
||||
11-20-2003, 07:51 PM | #86 | |||||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
A few points to pick up on.
Here's one that I should have addressed in my previous post: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|||||
11-21-2003, 04:03 AM | #87 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
|
|
11-21-2003, 07:40 AM | #88 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
Of course, while a character's struggle continues, and we continue to be "shown" or "told" about it, that character will retain psychological depth. In that sense, the example of the alcholic and the reformed alcoholic was perhaps not the best illustration of my point (although, in my defence, I was trying to be flippant [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] ). I agree with you on Frodo. He clearly is undergoing an intense personal struggle against temptation throughout most of the book, and this does become more psychologically intense as the book progresses. I still think that it is strange, however, that, despite the fact that he is the central character, we never really get inside his head in the same way that we did with Bilbo. And we never really witness his own personal struggle with the Ring in the same way that we do with Sam (and even, to a degree, Galadriel). So, although Frodo's psychological struggle is interesting, it could, I think, have been portrayed with greater depth. Perhaps Tolkien wanted to leave the details of what was going on in Frodo's head to our imaginations. Any thoughts? [ November 21, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|
11-21-2003, 11:32 AM | #89 | |
Wight
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Blowing the froth off a couple in this quaint little pub in Michel Delving.
Posts: 147
|
Lush,
First, my comments about "psychological depth" were to The Saucepan Man, and I quoted him. Your response was a little extreme (heroin needles, dirty, debased, acid flash-backs, and the like). But I took no offense [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] . I was trying to say that I disagreed with Saucepan Man that only those characters who are most tempted or most indecisive have this depth. And I think that other contributors to this thread have made very salient points that analysis may reveal the depth that is there but is implied in Tolkien's treatment of characters like Aragorn and Faramir, who appear less tempted or indecisive. Quote:
It was another way of saying that I personally don't particularly need or enjoy an author's intimate examination of a character's psychological states and struggles to find depth. Maybe in LotR I am finding depth of character, not depth of psychology. Anyway, my use of "modern" is not a technical term, but a way of saying modern writing styles that focus on the psychological treatment of the characters. So mentioning Freud was extraneous, perhaps just a slip. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
__________________
For I was talking aloud to myself. A habit of the old: they choose the wisest person present to speak to; the long explanations needed by the young are wearying. -Gandalf, The Two Towers |
|
11-21-2003, 11:53 AM | #90 | |
Wight
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Blowing the froth off a couple in this quaint little pub in Michel Delving.
Posts: 147
|
Quote:
Practically, the Victorians made major effect in change for the positive. Perhaps the literature you are reading from that era would give you a different picture. But authors fantasize. Else, 150 years from now, people might think our era was full of vampires and aliens, and our mythology ran toward people being batteries for a machine-world. Likewise, human nature has been, and remains, a curious mixture of good and evil. We can easily label the 1930's and 40's as "dark days," because so many people gave in to the evils of fascism and totalitarianism. If not for the influence of Churchill, we might still be in those dark days--or worse. Yet, the evil influences of the era were not uniform, for the British people did stand, even alone, until the US woke to the crisis and joined the fray. I think cultural and religious influences on the English speaking people (Britain and America) caused them to act completely differently than their counterparts on the European continent during that time. Though all possessed the same sinful nature.
__________________
For I was talking aloud to myself. A habit of the old: they choose the wisest person present to speak to; the long explanations needed by the young are wearying. -Gandalf, The Two Towers |
|
11-21-2003, 12:51 PM | #91 | |||
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
|
Quote:
With Sam, we know exactly what he was thinking when he decided to leave his master and put on the ring. We even have glimpses into his dreams where he remembers swimming in the Shire and thinks wistfully of Rose. With Frodo, it is very different. A certain amount is revealed to us, but so much more is purposely hidden. We know little of Frodo's dreams other than those which point towards his future doom in sailing to the West. Just look at the masterful passage at the Council of Elrond where Frodo elected to take up the Ring. Something of Frodo's thoughts are revealed, but much more is purposely couched in mystery. Quote:
Quote:
Just look at the words Tolkien uses to describe what Frodo is thinking at the Council of Elrond. It is as if Frodo has one foot in the Shire and the other in lands and mysteries that go back to ancient times. Words like "doom" and "dread" are not ones easily applied to hobbits, or even to your average man. I can not imagine such terms referring to Sam or Merry or Pippin. Phrase such as these as well as the reference to a mysterious voice speaking through the hobbit suggest that Frodo has slipped over the edge of what is normal and commonplace, becoming part of the older tales as represented in the Silm. Just what was that voice speaking through Frodo? Perhaps Manwe, or Eru, or simply the voice of doom...? I'm not sure that Tolkien even knew for sure, any more than he knew whether Frodo would find healing in the Blessed Lands. Frodo's character is steeped in mystery for precisely that reason. How could Tolkien have known what went on inside Frodo since the hobbit was fighting the ultimate evil. Such things are not for mortals to know so we can only catch brief glimpses of what is going on. As Tolkien indicated in another of his letters, Frodo was presented with a situation that was beyond the ken of any mortal (and even beyond that of a maia like Gandalf!). There was no way that he could succeed. It is precisely in situations like these that the author discreetly draws down the silver veil of mist so that we are left with wonder and mystery. For the same reason, we come to the end of the tale and are granted only a tiny glimpse of the white shores and far green country of the West. No explanation or psychological reason is possible or even desirable in such situations. The everyday has been swept away with something much grander and more mysterious coming to take its place. Most modern literature assumes that, if we could only get inside a character's head, we would understand their actions, why they act in a certain way. With Tolkien, it is different. Psychology and internal characterization take second place to preserving a sense of wonder and awe. Most moderns believe that psychology can be used to ferret out the truth. Tolkien was not blind to such things, but for him it was a side issue. The truth at the core of the universe lay in myth -- both the real and the subcreated. So when Frodo becomes caught up in an ancient myth, it is more important for us to sense that wonder, his place in the mythological framework, rather than to have all his individual actions and thoughts explained. I think it's precisely for this reason than many readers have difficulty with the character of Frodo. They are used to characterization and internal struggles being spelled out in modern stories. These are the same folk who complain that Frodo didn't pull his weight, relied too heavily on Sam, or was a "failure" because of what happened on the slopes of Mount Doom. They simply fail to see a struggle that is depicted in mythological rather than psychological terms. There is a second reason that may come into play here. At least in theory, Frodo is the one setting the tale down on paper after he returns from the Quest. We all know there are many problems with this framing device. Many folk would have had to confide to Frodo numerous details about what happened to them during the course of the War, and even Sam would have had to reveal his private musings, since Frodo could not have read his mind. Still, we can not totally disregard the author's contention that the tale was set down on paper by Frodo in the Red Book. The lack of internal characterization would be a logical extension of this, since Frodo would not have been privy to others' private thoughts unless they had cared to reveal them. Even more critically, would a naturally reticent hobbit who was still engaged in an overwhelming spiritual and emotional struggle reveal everything that had gone on inside his head during the Quest? Obviously not. So this is a second reason that helps to explain why we are not privy to Frodo's personal reflections. Either way we consider the issue, it is clear that much went on inside Frodo that is intentionally hidden from us. [ November 22, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. |
|||
11-21-2003, 02:17 PM | #92 | |||||
Fair and Cold
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Well, that's it from me. Thank you, Saucy, for reminding me again of Denethor. Now that dude was complex.
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
|||||
11-21-2003, 02:48 PM | #93 | |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,993
|
Might one member of the formerly British empire speak here, slightly off topic? I am very uncomfortable with some of what is suggested in this post.
Quote:
And as for your suggestion that it was England and America which upheld the effort against fascism and totalitarianism, you might want to examine a little closer just how much support existed in the US for the fascist position. *coughs* The patriarch of the Kennedy clan being only one prominent name. You might also look at the role of resistance fighters throughout Europe before you claim religious superiority for John Bull and his successors. There were, indeed, positive actions taken by people during the nineteenth century to work for the betterment of mankind. Yes, churches were in the forefront of the campaign to ban slavery throughout the British empire, which occured decades before the American Civil War. However, that did not stop British ships and captains from plying the slave trade even after the formal ban in the Empire. The history of English as well as European expansion into Africa is not one of the Western world's finest hours. Nor, indeed, can the issue be referred only to literature. One need only look at several social issues to see that religion did not always in the Victorian Age mean moral superiority. The plight of chimney sweeps (poor working class children who were often left to die if they became trapped in the chimneys), the destitution of poor women, the effect of the enclosure laws, the Luddite Rebellion, the divorce laws, the creation of "asylums" for the insane (with their guided tours for the leisured classes)--one could name many areas where social reality left much to be desired. For every example of human depravity in this age, someone can point to horrors of the past. Witch hunts, burnings at the stake, torture--all are complex issues with many different causes. I don't think any one country or any one religious sect can claim superiority. Historical issues are always, I think, very complex, more complex than general statements can perhaps allow and more complex than the scope of this topic allows. And, I would humbly suggest, this very issue of whether our age is a worse age than those which have preceeded us is itself determined largely by perspective and opinion. But for my part I would humbly suggest that we consider the role of genre in any discussion of character. Is Lord of the Rings a novel? Or is it an heroic romance? Do the characters partake more of archetypes from mythology than of characters from the realm of realistic fiction? Should we expect realism (that is, depth or complexity) in their depiction? Edit: My apologies, Saucy, for replying at length to a point very much tangential to your excellent thread. I must also say that I had not seen Lush's reply before posting my own. [ November 21, 2003: Message edited by: Bêthberry ]
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
|
11-21-2003, 05:54 PM | #94 | ||||
Wight
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Blowing the froth off a couple in this quaint little pub in Michel Delving.
Posts: 147
|
Quote:
2. The comment about Britain standing "even alone" was an allusion to Churchill's speech of June 4, 1940 to the House of Commons: Quote:
That there were large contingents within both US and Britain that wanted to stay out of the war is clear, I didn't say otherwise. Britain elected Chamberlain as PM and got "Peace in Their Time." (That is intended as a light-hearted reminder.) But thank God for Churchill! America needed to be convinced it was indeed "their" war, too, and eventually came around. Quote:
Quote:
Remember, I was originally trying to counter Eurytus countering Mark's argument from the first page in the thread. I do believe that my examples show that certain people or societies or even eras can and do have differing values, concepts they honor and pursue, though they may struggle, or even fail, in the attempt to achieve those aims.
__________________
For I was talking aloud to myself. A habit of the old: they choose the wisest person present to speak to; the long explanations needed by the young are wearying. -Gandalf, The Two Towers |
||||
11-21-2003, 06:10 PM | #95 | ||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
What I am interested in doing here is exploring Tolkien's style of characterisation, and in particular the presence or absence of psychological depth within his characters. How does Tolkien use psychological depth to bring his characters to life and/or drive the story? Why are some (principal) characters imbued with psychological depth and not others? And why are we given access to the direct thoughts, feelings and internal struggles of some, but not others? Child's post is an excellent example of just the kind of thing that I am looking for, and a highly enlightening response to the question that I posed concerning the difference in the (psychological) characterisations of Frodo and Sam. I think that you are right, Child, to mention Merry and Pippin in this regard too. Although we don't quite get into their heads to the same extent as we do with Sam, there are nevertheless instances where we get glimpses of their own internal approach to the events that they are witnessing. I have in mind here, in particular, their feelings of being on the edge of events (in Rohan and Gondor), which makes the central roles that they ultimately come to play in those events all the more striking. Like Sam, they are characters with whom the reader will find it much easlier to identify, much moreso than than Frodo, with his higher purpose. This leads me to womder whether there is a link with mark 12_30's point about noble and worthy characters being much more appealing to the reader when they are characterised by reference to their external actions, rather than their internal thoughts. Perhaps, as you say Child, Tolkien was more inclined to give us glimpses of the minds of the likes of Sam, Merry and Pippin because their worldly attitude is so much easier for us to identify with than Frodo's other-worldly calling. Bêthberry said: Quote:
Personally, I would describe LotR as a novel, but one which borrows heavily from the archetypes of mythology. And this, I think, is why many of Tolkien's characters are not drawn with great psychological depth. Heroic archetypes don't think, they do. We have our grounding in the Hobbits (with the exception of Frodo as the story develops, as Child has pointed out), as those are the characters that are (to my mind at least) the easiest for us to identify with. Personally, while I can admire the values displayed by the likes of Aragorn and Faramir, I find it far easier to identify with the likes of Sam, Merry and Pippin. Of the other characters, it is the Men who succumb to temptation or despair (Boromir, Eowyn and Denethor) who I think are easier to understand (whether personally or by reference to the society that we live in). And, funnily enough, they also seem to be characters who (to my mind) are drawn with greater psychological depth. Edit: Or is it a chicken and egg situation? Do I see greater psychological depth in the likes of Sam and Boromir because I find them easier to identify with, or do I find it easer to identify with them because they have greater pscyhological depth? [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] Edit 2: I'm fine with you having your right of reply, Theron, but from now on let's all stay on topic please. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] [ November 21, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
||
11-21-2003, 06:28 PM | #96 | |
Princess of Skwerlz
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles)
Posts: 7,500
|
Quote:
__________________
'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...' |
|
11-21-2003, 11:12 PM | #97 |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Please pardon me while I wildly applaud Child's brilliant post... and add a brief postscript: If Frodo is comparable to a saint, one who transcends (whether by opportunity or sheer neccessity) then surely his writings would also be comparable; and I think they are.
Peruse an autobiography or a diary of the average saint, and they will claim that they are a great sinner, even while those around them vouch for their great holiness, piety, humility, and continuity of action with belief. And (I find it fascinating) that the few times we really do "get inside Frodo", if only for a moment, are those moments when he encounteres Elven spirituality, or Goldberry's spirituality, often via song. By GOldberry's song, he feels "his heart moved with a joy that he did not understand". Arwen's glance and song "pierced his heart. He stood still enchanted..." And Galadriel's lament "did not comfort him. Yet... they remained graven in his memory..." And then of course there are the dreams. What we do see clearly in Frodo are his various supernatural experiences that prepare him for his quest. And then we see his struggles, when the darkness looms. I think this is similar to many writings of Catholic saints which tend to emphasize the contrast between experiences that deepened their faith, versus their struggles and weaknesses.
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. |
11-22-2003, 04:24 AM | #98 | |
Wight
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: England
Posts: 179
|
Quote:
I fully stand by my charge of hypocrisy towards the Victorian era and moreover address it to those who portray said era as a shining example to follow. As Bethberry has already mentioned things were bad enough in the Victorian era if you were a resident of Britain. If you were poor or a Catholic then you could expect the harshest of treatment. Let us not forget that whilst Jack the Ripper was slaughtering prostitutes many of the upper classes did not express concern at their plight. No, in their eyes they had earned the “wages of sin”. But things were even worse in the countries which the Victorians sought to “civilise” usually by slaughtering the population with high powered rifles. A look an the history of Indian or the African continent as a whole shows how honourable the Victorians were. It is a sad fact that whenever a country becomes governed rigidly according to morals influenced by religion then tolerance and compassion go out the window. In the Victorian’s case then I guess it is to be expected since they read a book that proclaimed that a woman who was raped in a city should be stoned to death as she could not have screamed loudly enough. See Leviticus for details. (If this post is too far off topic then I guess it can be deleted but since this thread has already run a pretty broad range of topics then I hope it can stay) I would say that it could be that the absence of any strict religion in LOTR is one of the reasons it has attained such widespread popularity.
__________________
"This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story!" Lionel Hutz |
|
11-22-2003, 07:47 AM | #99 | |
Princess of Skwerlz
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles)
Posts: 7,500
|
Quote:
Recent posts on this thread have really gone as far off-topic as I'm going to let it get. This is the last one I'm allowing; I expect all future posts to explore other topics only as related to the theme of this thread. A reminder to all - the Barrow-Downs was created by the Barrow-Wight as a forum for Tolkien discussions and it is his expressed intention to keep it that way. All other topics must be related to that major theme in order to be discussed here. The Saucepan Man has repeatedly attempted to get the discussion on this thread back to his initial topic; please honour his valiant attempt! Thanks!
__________________
'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...' |
|
11-22-2003, 08:13 AM | #100 | |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,993
|
Quote:
Saucepan, thanks for the nod about the question of genre. I think the presence of mythological archetypes brings another quality into the discussion of character besides depth and complexity, one which Child's excellent post and those of others talk about implicitly. This is change or the lack of it, stasis. Most of the discussion here seems to concern male characters, although there was some initial consideration of Galadriel. I think that reading the female characters as archetypes helps us understand why only one of them in Lord of the Rings shows the kind of change like that we see in Frodo or Sam. I am speaking here of course of Eowyn. She is the only female character who is given the kind of conflict which leads to change externally. The other female characters--Goldberry, Arwen, even (I am fearful saying this) Galadriel--function less in action and more as the traditional muse or inspiration. It is interesting that when Frodo has his intense reactions to both Goldberry and Arwen, we are not given any of their thoughts or dialogue except as they pertain to Frodo. (Goldberry replies, calling Frodo "elf-friend" while his vision of "her whom few mortals had yet seen" does not involve any interaction between them.) Rather than saying Tolkien did not give his female characters depth or complexity, I wonder if a better way to read their static characterization is to see them as archetypal figures rather than novelistic characters. EDIT: Sorry, Estelyn, we were cross posting and so I did not see your post until after I made mine. [ November 22, 2003: Message edited by: Bêthberry ]
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
|
11-22-2003, 10:31 AM | #101 | ||
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Bethberry, I'm intrigued, particularly about the seemingly limited interaction you mention between Frodo and the archetypal women. Could you expand on what you were driving at below? Thanks!
Quote:
Edit: Bethberry on rereading your post you say: Quote:
I guess I can ask the same question about Arwen; granted her greatest inner conflict doesn't come til after the quest is over and she's at Aragorn's deathbed. I would agree Goldberry does seem untouched by change, as does Tom for that matter. Anyway, please do expound on your theory of Frodo's relationships to archetypal women. Thanks! [ November 22, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. |
||
11-22-2003, 10:55 AM | #102 |
Dread Horseman
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Behind you!
Posts: 2,743
|
I’ve been trying to take in this idea that most of Tolkien’s characters lack psychological depth and see if it really holds water, but after much contemplation it simply doesn’t ring true for me.
If we buy Pullman’s dismissive assertion that only Gollum has psychological depth, then we must accept that by implication the other characters in LotR are for the most part psychologically shallow, that their motivations are simple and uninteresting, that they lack resonance and relatability and applicability and most of all believability, that they are at best rather flat archetypes which represent themes or ideas rather than touch the reader as real characters. But this simply isn’t the experience of a great many readers. So if we’re trying to steer away from matters of taste and attempting to focus on a more objective analysis, we must rule out some blanket assertions that have been made in the thread which seem to derive from personal taste: that the psychology of noble and resolute characters is intrinsically less interesting than the psychology of characters torn by internal strife and conflict, or that the latter is necessarily deeper and more profound than the former; that the psychology of unambiguously good characters or evil characters is inherently less interesting than the psychology of characters who are morally ambiguous; that Tolkien was completely uninterested in what made his characters tick and was only concerned with writing a mythic/romantic adventure tale. Although it was obviously not his sole or even primary concern in writing LotR, I think that Tolkien was deeply interested in the psychology of things like faith and temptation and heroism and leadership and friendship, and I think the depth of his insight into these themes is reflected in more of his characters than he’s being given credit for here. I think it is the great depth and profundity in his exploration of these themes – via the actions, interactions, and choices of his characters – which distinguishes his work and helps to account for its enduring appeal. |
11-22-2003, 12:14 PM | #103 |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Mr. Underhill, I quite heartily agree. And yet it is the intersection of Child's post (regarding Frodo's supernatural depth as well as his character-depth, which are difficult if not impossible to separate anyway) and how that related with his deeper spiritual encounters: primary examples of which were encounters with Goldberry, Arwen, Galadriel. I am certainly not suggesting that Arwen and Galadriel are psychologically shallow (and I haven't given Goldberry much thought, but I doubt she is either). Yet, as archetypal figures they do have a very strong effect on Frodo's spirituality. So I am wondering if considering them as archetypes (in addition to strong characters) brings another light into our consideration of Frodo's character.
I think (at least in Galadriel and Arwen) Frodo participates in encounters with archetypal figures-- who nevertheless carry deep emotional conflicts of their own.
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. |
11-22-2003, 01:52 PM | #104 |
Fair and Cold
|
Underhillo and Helen:
It does seem peculiar that a work that had the power to move millions of people should be populated by characters that lack, according to great minds like Pullman, "psychological depth." Why is it that some years ago, late at night with a single light burning, even a person like me had tears in her eyes as in my mind I was screaming at Sam to go on and choose wisely at the end of "The Two Towers"? How is it possible for a reader to care so much about what happens in the LOTR, if some sort of psychological depth is missing? Looking back on that night, I realize now that Tolkien's writing has the ability to put the reader inside the character; as I read "The Choices of Master Samwise," I was inhabiting Sam, I wasn't just rooting for him, I was also screaming at myself to go on. Based on my late self-discovery in this matter, I would argue that the clarity with which Tolkien imagined his characters makes them psychologically inclusive. Is what I'm describing another brand of depth? Am I the only weirdo to have felt like this in this most interesting context? Is Pullman still right? (I think he is, but, like Saucy pointed out, this could largely be one huge matter of taste) Thoughts? Ideas? Complaints? Rotten vegetables to be tossed at my head?
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
11-22-2003, 02:45 PM | #105 | |
Haunted Halfling
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: an uncounted length of steps--floating between air molecules
Posts: 841
|
Quote:
Cheers, Lyta
__________________
“…she laid herself to rest upon Cerin Amroth; and there is her green grave, until the world is changed, and all the days of her life are utterly forgotten by men that come after, and elanor and niphredil bloom no more east of the Sea.” |
|
11-23-2003, 09:24 AM | #106 | |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,993
|
Greetings All,
Lush, your recounting of your tears over Sam and Frodo in the dark of night reminded me of my own responses to Lord of the Rings. My first reading was a 'guilty read', done for my own pleasure undercover at night when I should have been studying European history, reading nineteenth century novels, analyzing medieval mystery plays and narrative--not bad companions to Tolkien, all said, really. My most recent cover-to-cover read was two years ago this November, by my mother's bedside in hospital as she underwent numerous painful tests and bodily intrusions, only, ultimately, to be told that her illness was incurable. Under those conditions, I was much more aware of death and loss in LOTR. I, too, felt every agony of Sam and Frodo on Mount Doom and of their final parting. And I cannot say how exquisitely moving was The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen in the Appendix. (Well, if I say more I risk turning this into a Tolkienics-Anon confession.) But to answer Helen's questions about my comments concering female archetypes and Mr. Underhill's masterful redefining post ... Two points motivated my thoughts about my post. First, I have been thinking seriously about jallanite's claim on the Dumbing Down thread that LOTR is a heroic romance. Second, I have been considering whether Pullman's assertion of psychological depth is the only meaningful criterion about character. Are there other points which can create intriguing characters for us? It seems to me that we capitulate in part to his point of view if we accept that psychological depth is the only thing which makes characters interesting for us. Quote:
I also think that Mr. Underhill's dichotomy (which he saw in this thread) between noble, resolute characters and strife-ridden characters, and between unambiguously good characters and evil characters, is a bit of a red herring. I suppose this has tended to be a standard arguement in art since John Milton apparently accidentally made his Satan more interesting than Adam and Eve in Paradise Lost. But I don't think it is the 'ideology' of the characters which is important. I've read evil characters who are plain, flatout boring to me. I've read good characters who are fascinating. The trick, it seems to me, lies in the telling of the tale, in how the character's perspective is dramatized within the tale. We seem to have come up with several ways of 'characterising' characterization. We have mentioned depth, complexity, change. I would like to suggest a fourth criterion, that of mystery. Characters intrigue us when we want to know more about them, when everything isn't given to us. We can then bring our own imaginations to bear upon them. This is another reason why I think archetypes can be so rewarding (to say nothing of how harrowing it is to follow Sam and Frodo). After all, which character here at the Barrow Downs seems to draw an endless number of threads? That enigma, Tom Bombadil. When I pointed out that Goldberry, Arwen, and Galadriel are depicted more as archetypes and Eowyn more as a realistic character, I was not giving priority to the method of Eowyn's depiction, but trying to suggest that Tolkien's method as a writer is not limited to one particular way of telling a story. We don't have to accept Pullman's box to enjoy Tolkien. And, as an aside to the question about morality, faith and religious themes in LOTR: Perhaps it is important to distinguish between religion as a formal authority and virtue as a personal experience or discovery. Tolkien was, after all, not only a monarchist and a Catholic, but an anarchist also. [ November 23, 2003: Message edited by: Bêthberry ]
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
|
11-23-2003, 11:46 AM | #107 |
Deathless Sun
|
I also think that there is something about the Trilogy that helps readers live with their grief. Yesterday night, I learned that my favorite cousin (who I loved as a brother) died in London. Let's just say that saying that I was devastated is an understatement. To help distract myself, and to keep myself from dwelling on that parting, I started reading LotR and then I realized that grieving over his death wouldn't accomplish anything except making me feel worse. Reading about the death of Theodred, the supposed death of Gandalf, the death of Boromir, etc. helped me take it in stride, and I think that is the true beauty of the trilogy and all the characters. The way that the Fellowship trudged on after Gandalf's death helped me, trudge on after my cousin's death.
__________________
But Melkor also was there, and he came to the house of Fëanor, and there he slew Finwë King of the Noldor before his doors, and spilled the first blood in the Blessed Realm; for Finwë alone had not fled from the horror of the Dark. |
11-23-2003, 02:51 PM | #108 | ||||
Mighty Mouse of Mordor
|
Finwe- I'm really sorry about your loss, you have my sympathies...
~*~ Quote:
I think that Tolkien's character have a lot of psychological depth. The thing is that you have to read between the lines as one the previous posters on this thread said. I totally agree. I think that if you want to understand Tolkien's characters, and what history lies behind them, then you have to read between the lines. I have to admit that there are many of Tolkien's characters that are "unclear" to me, but I also think that maybe it is supposed to be like that. Maybe I feel that the character doesn't have that much psychological depth because I don't feel "one" with him/her. I doubt that everyone feel that they have something in common with ex. Frodo. Why is that? I think it's because each person as the characters have their own psychological depth. And since there are so many characters I think it's even harder to sort out what really is behind. Bêthberry wrote: quote: Quote:
Quote:
Tom Bombadill is one of those characters. Is he an enigma? Is he a Maia? There are certain things that he does that would remind us of what he really is, but the thing is..: Quote:
So, maybe when Pullman said that he thought that Tolkien's characters didn't have any psychological depth, he didn't have anything in common with the characters, or (worse) he didn't read between the lines...... [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] I've probably repeated myself many times in this post, I just hope that someone understood my point..... [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] [ November 23, 2003: Message edited by: Orofaniel ]
__________________
I lost my old sig...somehow....*screams and shouts* ..............What is this?- Now isn't this fun? >_< .....and yes, the jumping mouse is my new avatar. ^_^ |
||||
11-23-2003, 03:52 PM | #109 |
Fair and Cold
|
I still think Pullman has a valid point; the sort of characterization that Tolkien employs relies heavily on the setting and the outside actions of the character to draw the reader in.
It is the reader's response to Sam, for example, that ultimately makes Sam come to life, I think. Which is pretty cool, but does not negate Pullman's point completely.
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
11-23-2003, 07:31 PM | #110 |
Deathless Sun
|
I think that Pullman had the right idea, but he was just a bit too close-minded about his idea. He didn't take into consideration that the setting/plot of Lord of the Rings made up for the "psychological deficiency" in the characters.
__________________
But Melkor also was there, and he came to the house of Fëanor, and there he slew Finwë King of the Noldor before his doors, and spilled the first blood in the Blessed Realm; for Finwë alone had not fled from the horror of the Dark. |
11-23-2003, 08:26 PM | #111 | |||||||||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
As for the other principal female characters, I agree that they are more archetypal in their portrayal. They are not, to mind, depicted with any great psychological depth. Quote:
Quote:
I detect a slight confusion on this thread between "psychological depth" and "depth of characterisation". Psychological depth is, as I have said previously, only one aspect of characterisation. There are many other methods of characterisation which can make a character believable, interesting and appealing (or unappealing as the case may be) to the reader. So, I don't feel that a lack of psychological depth in certain of Tolkien's characters necessarily represents any failing on his part or any flaw in his works. Nor does it make them any less inspirational in the good qualities that they show. It is simply that he did not, in my view, feel any great need to give his characters psychological depth, save where the needs of the story required it. Many of his characterisations are rich, but not necessarily so on a psychological level. As Lush said: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|||||||||
11-24-2003, 08:39 AM | #112 | ||
Mighty Mouse of Mordor
|
Quote:
Quote:
I would say that the psychological depth is a very important factor. I think they do have to have psychological depth so that we, the readers, will find the characters interesting. I think the psychological depth in the Tolkien's characters (and for that matter, other characters) is important also because we can compare ourselves with them. If they had no psychological depth, I don't think we could. And I also think we do care about them, just because they are deep, and much developed psychological, and the fact that we feel that we have something in common with the character(s). Cheers, Orofaniel [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
__________________
I lost my old sig...somehow....*screams and shouts* ..............What is this?- Now isn't this fun? >_< .....and yes, the jumping mouse is my new avatar. ^_^ |
||
11-24-2003, 09:21 AM | #113 | ||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
||
11-24-2003, 10:03 AM | #114 | ||
Mighty Mouse of Mordor
|
Quote:
Quote:
I think Legolas and Gimli are that much developed that they make a good story. The story is good because of the people in it, and the relationship between the two of them. You ask why we would care about them afterwards; I think that could be different from person to person. You may not feel that you have anything in common with the two of them, others may though. So to discuss character's psychological depth will of course be understood differently from person to person. I, myself, think that the story about Gimli and Legolas has its own charm. They are two completely different people, but yet, they are on the same quest together; to destroy the ring, and protect Frodo. They become friends even though dwarves and elves don’t go well together. I think that says a lot about their psychological depth…… Cheers (again) Orofaniel [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] [ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: Orofaniel ] [ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: Orofaniel ]
__________________
I lost my old sig...somehow....*screams and shouts* ..............What is this?- Now isn't this fun? >_< .....and yes, the jumping mouse is my new avatar. ^_^ |
||
11-24-2003, 10:17 AM | #115 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|
11-24-2003, 12:01 PM | #116 | |
Wight
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: England
Posts: 179
|
Quote:
I guess you could therefore call it an archetype, though I don't remember them being deep.
__________________
"This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story!" Lionel Hutz |
|
11-24-2003, 12:52 PM | #117 | ||
Dread Horseman
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Behind you!
Posts: 2,743
|
Whoo – fast-moving thread. I’ll try to catch up.
Bêthberry, I’m certainly not discounting the value of archetypes – on the contrary. LotR is chock full of them. I certainly don’t think that describing a character in terms of an archetype precludes depth or complexity, and I agree that there is value in examining Tolkien’s use of archetypes, especially in relation to how he draws his characters. I think the best characters strum that resonant archetypal chord you mention, yet are individuated enough to become “real” for the reader. There is a fine line between archetype and cliché, and as you point out, execution is everything. I think we’re really on the same page in most other respects. You’ve made an especially good point regarding mystery. The things that an author doesn’t tell us or only hints at can be as important as the things they do tell us. Tolkien was certainly aware of the power of mystery, and I think his skill in using this technique to suggest a wide world, a deep history, and rich lives beyond the borders of his story is one of his strongest talents as a writer. Saucepan, there’s a lot going on here, but you’re already opting out of the conversation. I’ll try to address a few of your points anyway, and you can respond or not as you like. I think I’ll address your last point first. We’ve made a lot of distinctions to discuss different aspects of characterization, but these distinctions are really artificial and break down if taken too far. Really, in a good characterization, everything flows from and speaks to a character’s psychology – what motivates him or her. Everything from his job, to the clothes he wears, to the attitudes he holds, to the things he values, to the things he says and does. I think part of the problem here is that you’re trying to box your definition of “psychological depth” into a very narrow concept, one that I don’t think can be so neatly separated from other aspects of characterization. And I don’t think that’s what Pullman had in mind either. Let’s take another look at the most telling part of his criticism: “...[LotR] doesn’t really say anything to me because the characters have no psychological depth. The only interesting character is Gollum.” Pullman’s definition – and I think what most people conceive of when they think of psychological depth – is much broader than you’re suggesting. It speaks directly to how we relate to a character, whether they’re interesting or not, whether they have anything to say to us and whether or not they resonate with us. Pullman most certainly cites a lack of it as a failing and a flaw. Quote:
Quote:
I think important characters must be drawn with psychological depth to be interesting to the extent that they must come across as believable, “real” characters, ones whose motivations and struggles we can understand and empathize with (as so ably described by Lush, Lyta, and Bb above) and not wooden pawns that the author shuffles around according to the needs of his plot. In a good story, there is interplay between the events of the story and the motivations and behaviors of the characters. Each feeds on and is informed by the other. In a more general sense, I’d also challenge the idea of putting too much emphasis on Card’s “types” of stories (milieu, character, idea, and event). I think he’s off-base when he classifies LotR as a story that’s primarily concerned with “milieu”. Maybe the idea needs more explanation, but who writes stories that are primarily concerned with milieu besides Michener? Also, note that he emphasizes that all four elements are present in any story to some extent. You can’t just say that a story of 500,000 words is “event-driven” and leave it at that. Regarding the characters and relationship of Gimli and Legolas – some may see no more depth than is present in a run-of-the-mill buddy flick, others (myself included) may find satisfyingly deep themes of friendship, loyalty, honor, chivalry, and more there. This is another matter of taste. Hmm... I could say more, but this post is already stretching to epic length. I’ll leave off for now and let others respond. [ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ] |
||
11-24-2003, 02:35 PM | #118 | ||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Eurytus wrote:
Quote:
Sure, the "friendship between opposites" thing has been used a lot, and (like anything that is used so often) it has often been used poorly. A lot of popular songs use string ensembles, and in about 95% of these cases the result is schmaltzy, over-sentimental, and generally disgusting. Does that make "Yesterday" or "Eleanor Rigby" bad? Does it make genuine string quartets bad? As a matter of fact, I think that the popularity of the device seen in the friendship between Legolas and Gimli stems largely from the fact that it is an effective device. Alas, such easily recognizable and easily implemented devices are often used as a desparate measure by poor writers. But that does not diminish the effectiveness of the technique itself. Is it "psychologically deep"? That depends entirely on one's definition of "psychologically deep". Mister Underhill wrote: Quote:
Of course, you can analyze psychological depth as a technique used in characterization. This is perfectly valid and, I think, very interesting. But you must then face the difficulty that there is no clear line between this aspect of characterization and others. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
11-24-2003, 07:30 PM | #119 | ||||||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
But, you have succeeded in provoking me to expound further. [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img] [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] I will start by agreeing with you. It really comes down to how you define the term. Quote:
Quote:
I agree that he sees this as a failing of Tolkien's works. That is where opinion comes into it. I happen to disagree with him on two counts. First, as I have indicated in my previous posts, I think that we do get into the minds of a number of characters in Tolkien's works, whether by being given direct access to their thoughts or by being given an understanding of their internal reactions from their external actions and reactions, and their dialogue with other characters. And, secondly, where the characters do lack psychological depth (in the sense that I am talking about) I do not see this as a failing, because, in these instances, it is not necessary from the perspective of the story for us to get into their minds. You have quoted an excerpt from an earlier post where I said that characters who lack internal struggle or who are unambiguously good will be less psychologically interesting. What I am really saying is that, if we simply see a character's actions and gain no understanding of what is driving those actions, there can be no psychological interest in that character. They will have no psychological depth (in the sense that I understand the term). The more we gain an understanding of their psyche, the more psychologically interesting they become. Neither inner turmoil nor moral ambiguity is necessary to give a character psychological depth but, where factors such as these are present, then I believe that there will be greater psychological depth, and therefore the character will be more interesting from a psychological standpoint. But, rather than being a matter of taste, I think that the difference between us is in our respective definitions of "psychological depth". Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Ultimately, I suspect that this debate on terms of reference is unlikely to take us much further. But I see no reason why the discussion of "psychological depth" in Tolkien's characters should not continue on the basis of whatever definition people may choose to apply to that term. That, in itself, may assist us in gaining a greater understanding of what the term entails. And, if this means that the discussion broadens out into an analysis of characterisation on a more general level, then that is fine by me.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
||||||
11-24-2003, 08:19 PM | #120 | |
Tyrannus Incorporalis
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: the North
Posts: 833
|
The term "psychological depth" seems to me to be simply the extent to which the reader can understand the thought processes of the characters and relate to the characters on an individual basis. Characterization is the process of building and explaining the persona or disposition of a character for the purpose of the story, in which case neither psychological depth nor characterization is a substratum of the other. Characterization seems to me to deal with advancement of the plot whereas creating psychological depth in writing is a means of making the reader care about the advancement of the plot. In this case, I would say (from my own rather biased perspective) that Tolkien succeeded in his efforts to create pyschological depth. Certainly he does not delve deep into the psyches of each individual character, but such is not to be expected (nor necessarily desired) in epic writing.
What he does do is provide the reader with an often subtle and often blatant advancement of the motivations and emotions of his characters. Take Aragorn for example. He is indeed left mostly uncharacterized throughout the whole of Book One, but nevertheless through his actions in defense of the hobbits and through his overall persona we are given an ambiguous look at his disposition, personality and psyche. His own inner turmoil is brought to light by Boromir's words at the Council of Elrond. When Boromir openly questions Aragorn's ability to wield Narsil reforged, we see Aragorn's lack of assuredness at his own preparedness to do so, giving us the groundwork for the plight that Aragorn faces. In "The Ring Goes South" in the Fellowship of the Ring, there is a particularly moving although subtle hint at the doubt and anxiety that Aragorn will face on his pending journey: Quote:
After Helm's Deep, when he reveals himself to Sauron via the Palantir and decides on his own to venture the Paths of the Dead to reach Gondor, his character grows in depth, as once again it is illustrated how deeply he is burdened with the task of getting to Gondor and, ultimately, defeating Sauron. This scene also advances the psychological depth of Aragorn in that it shows him growing as a person, being able to face a number of choices and willfully make a decision. In the final stage of his physical and psychological journey, he is at first uncertain, coming to Minas Tirith but fighting on its flanks instead of claiming command over it. However, he becomes quickly decisive after the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, understanding the many variables of the War and coming to the conclusion that he should march with a host to Mordor, there to divert Sauron's attention away from Frodo and Sam and give the two hobbits a final chance in their quest of utmost importance. By now the reader is emotionally attached to the journey of Aragorn (at least I was, and still am upon re-reading the books). When he becomes King, the reader feels a connection with him, and a sense of fulfillment and pride in the fulfillment of his quest. Of course, this is just my take on this character, and of course many of you may not agree with my definitions of psychological depth and characterization. I believe that the two coincide and depend upon each other, and in the case of Aragorn and many of the other characters, I felt that through characterization, through advancement of the plot and through subtle or obvious hints about the mind states and thought processes, there was a real sense of psychological depth achieved in the characters of Professor Tolkien's works. Cheers, Angmar
__________________
...where the instrument of intelligence is added to brute power and evil will, mankind is powerless in its own defence. |
|
|
|