Eurytus wrote:
Quote:
|
In my view a person is always more interesting than a mountain and therefore deserves more attention.
|
Tolkien seems to subscribe to the idea that character should be revealed through
actions rather than through
description. This is at odds with the modern trend, but a great many examples can be found in earlier works. Take the
Iliad or the
Odyssey. Or the
Aeneid. Or even
Beowulf. In each of these works (as in LotR) we learn about the characters not by being told about their inner thoughts, hopes, and desires, but rather by being shown what they do. And, again as in LotR, there is a multitude of characters of intermediate importance about whom we learn very little. If you call Tolkien's characters paper-thin, you will have to level the same charge against the characters in these works.
A mountain cannot act, and thus must be described.
It is only modern literature that has developed a curious preoccupation with the inner lives of the characters, and has drawn a disjunction between the internal and the external.
Each way has its advantages and disadvantages. Tolkien's way has the virtue that it presents the characters in a book in the same way that we are actually presented with characters in real life - that is, through their actions. It also makes characterization less burdensome a process, allowing a superior flow of plot. And if done well, it can imply a great deal, and in great detail, about a character's inner life (a prime example in Tolkien is Turin).
The modern way has the advantage that it often allows closer sympathy with the characters and provides us with a more comprehensive characterization. And if done well, the inner lives of the characters can be made into focal points for the plot, so that the plot can proceed relatively unimpeded.
Maybe you prefer the latter way, but I don't think that it is in any obvious way better than the former.