Quote:
|
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.
|
You are reading me right, Mister U, and I stand by my definition. A character may be profoundly noble, but I would not describe that character as psychologically deep. If a character's pscyhe has only one aspect (or a range of similar aspects) to it, then it cannot, to my mind, be deep, however intensely those aspects may be drawn. So yes, I would equate psychological depth with psychological complexity. And it seems to me that this was how Pullman was using the phrase in his quote which started this thread off, particularly as he cites Gollum as the one character who, in his view, does have psychological depth.