[Aiwendil]

Hilde Bracegirdle wrote:

So I would say there is implied psychological depth to quite a few, if you are looking for it. I would not say that it is a hindrance to have the stories told from a character’s viewpoint, rather it is more like real life; you have to read between the lines. Tolkien seems to get these internal struggles across by clues in conversations, characters actions and the reader’s common sense. By that I mean, the reader realizing how anyone is apt to feel under those conditions.

I think this is exactly right.

In the "Dumbing Down the Books" thread, I argued that there are two major schools of characterization. In the "modern" school, characterization is internal. This method attempts to give the audience direct access to a character's inner thoughts, conflicts, and so forth. It is an implied supposition of this school that it is the inner life of the characters that is important. In, for example, Crime and Punishment, this technique is central to the story.

In the "ancient" school, characterization is external. Character is revealed through actions and speech rather than through direct access to the character's thoughts. This has certain advantages and certain disadvantages in comparison to the modern school.

Of course, these two techniques are not mutually exclusive. Though Tolkien relies primarily on the latter, he not unaware of the former, more modern, technique. Particularly in the character of Gollum, he makes some use of this internal technique. This is probably why Gollum stands out from the rest as an especially vivid character, appealing even to those with a bias against the external method.

It is the internal method that is typically associated with "psychological depth", for here we actually enter into a character's thoughts and plumb the depths of his or her psyche. But the external technique allows a kind of implied psychological depth to which modern critics have a tendency to be blind. It is this implied depth that chiefly characterizes, for example, Denethor, Frodo, or Boromir. We are not told Denethor's thoughts directly, but we learn enough about him to understand his despair, his inner conflict, and his madness. This kind of characterization is a lot more subtle than Tolkien is generally given credit for. It calls on the reader to piece together (perhaps subconsciously) various things that are said about Denethor, things said by him, actions he performs, and so on. It has the (I think major) advantage that this is the way we actually come to know people in real life.

But there is another layer of subtlety: sometimes pieces of this implied characterization are achieved through association with other characters and events in Tolkien's mythology. This is more true of The Silmarillion than of The Lord of the Rings. For example, some of Feanor's implied depth comes from the mythological persona of Aule, and from associations already built into the mythology around Aule.

It must be admitted that there are some characters that are not given such great depth, implied or direct - Legolas and Gimli, for example. But here we come to another conflict between ancient and modern literature. In addition to disagreeing on what techniques to use for characterization, they disagree on the importance of characterization as part of the story. There is a modern tendency to consider characterization the most important aspect of literature. But this was not always so. Beowulf is not about the character of the protagonist, but about his deeds (and not only in so far as they imply psychological depth). Again, neither way is right, and great works of literature have been achieved in both schools. But the force with which some critics criticize Tolkien's characterization seems to arise in large part from the supposition that character is the most important aspect of any story, and that this is a universal truth.