Quote:
|
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).
|
I find it interesting that your prime example is Turin, which might imply that a character in one of Tolkien's unfinished works is better drawn than those in the LOTR.
And you may be able to develop character by showing their actions but since most of Legolas's actions consist of nothing more than shooting, fighting or running there is little character description obtained. Indeed there is only some throw away details about him walking on the snow etc to show that, hey he's not a man he's an Elf! Beyond that his actions tell us absolutely nothing about him at all. No more so than watching a guy working on the roadworks could indicate that he is interested in chess, or spends his free time re-enacting medieval battles or any number of things.
Is it more interesting watching him wield a pickaxe than to get inside his head and see what makes him tick? Does it tell us more about him?
I personally think not?
As to it following the trend set by the Iliad and the Odyssey.
That may be so, but constructing a pastiche of a style 2,000 years old is not really the way to go about writing a book for a modern audience.
After all, very few modern readers will read either of those books.
And there is no way I am ever going to believe that it is not a flaw to ascribe more detail in describing the development of Pipeweed by Hobbits than to the motivations, character quirks etc of Gimli and Legolas put together (nearly a quarter of the fellowship before anyone complains about them being minor characters).