[The Saucepan Man]

This topic has been touched on in a number of threads, most recently in "Dumbing Down the Books", but I do not believe that it has a thread of its own.

The Independent, a UK newspaper, has a weekly spot where readers are invited to pose questions for various "celebs". This week was Philip Pullman's turn (and I have to admit to not having read any of his books, although I have one on my "to read" pile).

He was asked:

Harry Potter or the Lord of the Rings?

He replied:

Um. This is one of those Archbishop of Canterbury 12-second silences. I can't really answer the question. I read The Lord of the Rings when I was a teenager and I didn't really like it. I have tried to read it since, but it doesn't really say anything to me because the characters have no psychological depth. The only interesting character is Gollum. And I've only read one Harry Potter book, the second one, and it wouldn't be fair to comment on that basis, although I thought it was funny and inventive. Neither are my particular favourites.

Putting aside the curiosity of one of modern fantasy's current standard-bearers remarking unfavourably on one of the genre's founding fathers, I am most interested in people's views on his comment that Tolkien's characters lack "psychological depth". Is Pullman right on this? Or is there some depth to Tolkien's characters? If so, which ones and how is it brought out?

I won't give my own views for now, save to say that I think he is on safe ground as far as Legolas and Gimli are concerned. But, Gollum aside, here are a few possible candidates for inner conflict and/or psychological development in LotR:

Frodo: Just an unlikely hero, or is there some depth in his struggle to resist the Ring and his treatment of Gollum? And what about his ultimate inability to stay in Middle-earth in consequence of the travails that he has undergone?

Aragorn: Paper-thin would-be King and all round good guy, or does the Book (rather than the films) bring out any sense of his uncertainty over his destiny? Is there some depth brought out in his realtionship with Eowyn?

Samwise: Simple Gardener and loyal servant/friend, or do the Choices of Master Samwise bring out some depth in the struggle that he undergoes?

Meriadoc: Hobbit sidekick 1, or a Hobbit whose interest in the wider world leads to his development as a heroic character?

Pippin: Hobbit sidekick 2 and repository of light relief (in the Books, that is), or young innocent whose inquiring mind leads to an incredible transformation?

Boromir: Ring-seizing stooge, or a Man tortured by the conflict between his oath to serve the Fellowship and his desire to serve the interests of his people?

Denethor: Carboard cut-out mean tyrant and overbearing father, or a Man driven to desperation and dark deeds by despair (the chapter on the Palantiri in Unfinished Tales has some good material in this regard)?

Faramir: Too noble and perfect to be believable, or does he undergo a real conflict between his duty and his desire to prove himself to his father and his instinctive feel for what is the right thing to do?

Theoden: Simply under Wormtongue's spell or is there an inner struggle going on before Gandalf releases him from the effect of Wormtongue's words? And after that, is there some sense that he is struggling to decide what is the right thing to do by his realm and by his historical allies in Gondor?

Just a few characters. Feel free to bring up more, from LotR or Tolkien's other works. Does Tolkien imbue his principal characters with real psycholgical depth, or do they merely serve to tell the greater story? Is the fact that his stories are told from the perspective of just a few characters (Frodo and, to a lesser extent, Sam in LotR, Bilbo in the Hobbit, and no one in particular in the Silmarillion) a hinderance in this regard? If so, how does Tolkien get round this device to bring out the inner struggles of his characters (if indeed he does)?