[Lush]

My take on Victorian-era sensibilities and hypocrisies is that the culture valued or prized ideals that individuals could not always live up to, all of them being of a fallen race. However, because the ideals were prized, people identified with them and sought after them more openly, it would seem. Christian missionary work, the ending of the practice of black slavery, establishment of hospitals and all sorts of aid societies are perhaps good examples. That was a powerful era of British world influence, and not just political.

I'm not out to demonize the Victorians or anything (lest I want the future generations to demonize me), but my original point was that they were not any better or worse than we are today; my discontent lies with the glorification of the good ol' days that simply never existed in human society (note I am placing a limit on my theory).

I conclude that one's worldview does indeed have much to say on how or if one will perceive the incredible depth of character in Tolkien's writings.

Can reading experience be constituted as part of my "world-view"?

I disagree with (perhaps my understanding of) your definition of psychological depth, if by it you mean a character has to wallow in temptation to sin, indecision, or some other angst in order that the reader find the character interesting, or to assure that the character be perceived as deep or having something of great value to contribute to today's reader.

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.

When I say that Tolkien's character's lack it, I am not implying that for me psychological depth involves having Aragorn battling an existential despair that gets triggered by acid flash-backs or Arwen finding herself confused by her feelings of lust for Glorfindel while her man is away.

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.

I find the strength of nobility and purpose, and the insight into others' thoughts and weakness, and the gentleness and humility of Aragorn, for example--as pointed out earlier by some contributors here--extremely
psychologically interesting, but not from a Freudian or other modern psychological standpoint.

In case you saw my early musings on Aragorn and his sword: My references to Freud were mostly meant as a joke (and, btw, Freudian ideas are no longer in the forefront of psychology: good Sigmund has got others carrying the torch for him these days...hopefully with more success [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ). But I am curious to know what you mean by the word "modern" in the context of your last sentence.

[ November 20, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]