[The Saucepan Man]

A few points to pick up on.

Here's one that I should have addressed in my previous post:

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.

Well, if that's the accepted view, I cannot really argue with it. It's not a concept that I am overly familiar with. My understanding was based on my natural reaction to the words. If an event happens and I am told about it, then I am not experiencing it directly, whereas, if I am shown it, I am. But, whatever the definition, I feel that the point that Helen (and Aiwendil) made still stands. A noble and worthy character is likely to be more appealing (and interesting) to readers if we are shown that nobility played out in their actions, rather than simply being told about their noble and worthy thoughts.

Actually, I think that this point of contention is an illusion.

Fair point, Aiwendil. I probably shouldn't have used the word "contention". My purpose was to try to illustrate the rationale for my definition of "psychological depth".

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.

But, davem, I don't see a character's efforts to implement a course of action that they have already decided on as a psychological struggle. It is more a struggle of action and interaction. And if we only meet them after they have gone through that internal struggle, then we are not really seeing their psychological depth. An alcoholic, although tragic, is far more psychologically interesting than a teetotal reformed alchoholic. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Psychological depth isn't about how many heroin needles are sticking out of the character's skin, or something along those lines.

Psychological depth isn't about how dirty or debased or corrupt or bored or drunk a character is.

Yes, despite my flippant comment above, I largely agree with that, Lush. We might learn something about a character's psyche from external attributes such as these, but they only gain psychological depth when we see the internal factors that have produced, or are influencing, these attributes. So, the fact that Denethor sets fire to himself, and tries to do the same to his son, tells us something about his psyche. But, by "showing" ( [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ) us the factors that have led him to that state, Tolkien fleshes out Denethor's psyche and we gain an impression of the internal struggle that he has gone through. And, were we to be given direct access to that internal struggle, we would gain an even greater understanding of his psyche.

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.

No arguments from me there. We don't necessarily need psychological depth for psychological stimulation. We can get this from seeing the actions of the characters, and the consequences of those actions, without necessarily learning a great deal about the complexities of their internal thoughts. As I said earlier, it really depends on what you want from a story.