Whoo – fast-moving thread. I’ll try to catch up.
Bêthberry, I’m certainly not discounting the value of archetypes – on the contrary. LotR is chock full of them. I certainly don’t think that describing a character in terms of an archetype precludes depth or complexity, and I agree that there is value in examining Tolkien’s use of archetypes, especially in relation to how he draws his characters. I think the best characters strum that resonant archetypal chord you mention, yet are individuated enough to become “real” for the reader. There is a fine line between archetype and cliché, and as you point out, execution is everything.
I think we’re really on the same page in most other respects. You’ve made an especially good point regarding mystery. The things that an author doesn’t tell us or only hints at can be as important as the things they do tell us. Tolkien was certainly aware of the power of mystery, and I think his skill in using this technique to suggest a wide world, a deep history, and rich lives beyond the borders of his story is one of his strongest talents as a writer.
Saucepan, there’s a lot going on here, but you’re already opting out of the conversation. I’ll try to address a few of your points anyway, and you can respond or not as you like.
I think I’ll address your last point first. We’ve made a lot of distinctions to discuss different aspects of characterization, but these distinctions are really artificial and break down if taken too far. Really, in a good characterization, everything flows from and speaks to a character’s psychology – what motivates him or her. Everything from his job, to the clothes he wears, to the attitudes he holds, to the things he values, to the things he says and does.
I think part of the problem here is that you’re trying to box your definition of “psychological depth” into a very narrow concept, one that I don’t think can be so neatly separated from other aspects of characterization. And I don’t think that’s what Pullman had in mind either.
Let’s take another look at the most telling part of his criticism: “...[LotR] doesn’t really say anything to me because the characters have no psychological depth. The only interesting character is Gollum.”
Pullman’s definition – and I think what most people conceive of when they think of psychological depth – is much broader than you’re suggesting. It speaks directly to how we relate to a character, whether they’re interesting or not, whether they have anything to
say to us and whether or not they resonate with us. Pullman most certainly cites a lack of it as a failing and a flaw.
Quote:
|
Mister Underhill, I think that you misunderstand the point that I am trying to make
|
Am I misreading you? I thought you were pretty clear in some of your previous posts:
Quote:
But there is less psychological depth here because, as I said earlier, noble characters who have no inner turmoil are less psychologically interesting than those who are struggling inside (note that does not necessarily make them less interesting characters, just less psychologically interesting).
As I said in my previous post, I believe that it is internal conflicts and struggles which makes a character more psychologically interesting.
Characters who are unambiguously good or unambiguously evil will be less psychologically interesting than those who are more ambiguous in this regard, or who are flawed in some way. The wholly good/wholly evil characters may be interesting and richly characterised in other ways, and have important roles to play in the story, but they will lack any real psychological depth.
|
I understand that you’re trying to confine your comments here strictly to a character’s psychology – yet I still think these are matters of taste and, as noted by Bêthberry, execution.
I think important characters must be drawn with psychological depth to be interesting to the extent that they must come across as believable, “real” characters, ones whose motivations and struggles we can understand and empathize with (as so ably described by Lush, Lyta, and Bb above) and not wooden pawns that the author shuffles around according to the needs of his plot. In a good story, there is interplay between the events of the story and the motivations and behaviors of the characters. Each feeds on and is informed by the other.
In a more general sense, I’d also challenge the idea of putting too much emphasis on Card’s “types” of stories (milieu, character, idea, and event). I think he’s off-base when he classifies LotR as a story that’s primarily concerned with “milieu”. Maybe the idea needs more explanation, but who writes stories that are primarily concerned with milieu besides Michener? Also, note that he emphasizes that all four elements are present in any story to some extent. You can’t just say that a story of 500,000 words is “event-driven” and leave it at that.
Regarding the characters and relationship of Gimli and Legolas – some may see no more depth than is present in a run-of-the-mill buddy flick, others (myself included) may find satisfyingly deep themes of friendship, loyalty, honor, chivalry, and more there. This is another matter of taste.
Hmm... I could say more, but this post is already stretching to epic length. I’ll leave off for now and let others respond.
[ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]