Lush,
First, my comments about "psychological depth" were to The Saucepan Man, and I quoted him. Your response was a little extreme (heroin needles, dirty, debased, acid flash-backs, and the like). But I took no offense [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] .
I was trying to say that I disagreed with Saucepan Man that only those characters who are most tempted or most indecisive have this depth. And I think that other contributors to this thread have made very salient points that analysis may reveal the depth that is there but is implied in Tolkien's treatment of characters like Aragorn and Faramir, who appear less tempted or indecisive.
Quote:
|
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 ). But I am curious to know what you mean by the word "modern" in the context of your last sentence.
|
I missed those musings, perhaps they were not in this thread. I am new to the forum, and it is a major undertaking to read--with some attempt at understanding [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] --even the few threads that I have. So I wasn't commenting on them.
It was another way of saying that I personally don't particularly need or enjoy an author's intimate examination of a character's psychological states and struggles to find depth. Maybe in LotR I am finding depth of character, not depth of psychology.
Anyway, my use of "modern" is not a technical term, but a way of saying modern writing styles that focus on the psychological treatment of the characters. So mentioning Freud was extraneous, perhaps just a slip. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]