[The Saucepan Man]

So as I predicted, this discussion is, at least in part, being re-focused on matters of taste. Which are useless to argue about.

Not just useless, Lush, but sometimes liable to provoke strong reactions. I thoroughly agree that we should steer clear from expressing our personal opinions on the relative merits of different writing styles.

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:

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?

These too are, I think, eminently suitable themes to explore in this thread. Certainly much more so than a discussion of relative moral values in societies throughout history or the differing national efforts in the struggle against fascism in the 1930s and 1940s. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] Although your post was excellently expressed, Bêthberry, and suffice it to say that I agree with it in its entirety. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

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 ]