[The Saucepan Man]

Yes, I can see that there is a difference between Pullman's "modern" approach of giving the reader direct access to his character's inner feelings and conflicts, and Tolkien's manner of showing us his characters inner feelings and conflicts through their actions and their interactions with other characters.

The question is whether Tolkien is successful in this. To Pullman's mind, he clearly is not (with the exception of Gollum), since Pullman does not consider Tolkien's characters to have psychological depth. And, if Tolkien is not successful in conveying his characters "inner selves", why is it that his works are so popular?

It has been said that the psychological depth in Tolkien's characters is to be implied. And I can accept this to a certain degree. This, to my mind, is certainly true of Denethor. Aiwendil said:

We are not told Denethor's thoughts directly, but we learn enough about him to understand his despair, his inner conflict, and his madness.

And I thoroughly agree with this. For me, Denethor is a prime example of one of Tolkien's characters whose psychological depth is very well-mapped. When I first read LotR, I never had the sense that Denethor was an evil character, although neither is he all good by any stretch of the imagination. Through his actions, and through his relationships with other characters, we get the sense that he is a tragic character. He is flawed, yes. This much is apparent from his differing treatment of his two sons. But he is a tragic character. A man who started out with the most worthy of intentions to do the best for his people, but who, through his use of the Palantir, came round to thinking that there was no hope. A man who lost his beloved son, and whose other son was a source of disappointment to him. But even then, there might have been some hope in his remaining son, until he too languished on the point of near death. Even without realising the sense of guilt that he probably felt over the death of his wife (for this is not really told in LotR), we can understand the state of despair that drove him to the terrible deeds by which he took his own life and almost that of his son. Yes, there is definately psychological depth in Denethor.

Similarly with Boromir, but less obviously so. When I first read LotR (admittedly at a young age), I had no sympathy for him. And yet, in subsequent readings, I came to understand the struggle that he went through and to see him as an incredibly sympathetic character. Here is a man who was under intense pressure to do what was right for his people. And, yes, perhaps to steal a bit of glory for himself. Why should he have listened to the words of the wise? He did initially, but the thought of using the Ring to defend Gondor and perhaps defeat Sauron was ever present. And this was what the Ring worked on, giving rise to an intense internal struggle which he was ultimately unable to suppress.

But these are the "grey" characters, who are neither wholly good nor unacceptably evil. Gollum fals into the same category, and Pullman (rightly) acknowledges him as a character who does have psychological depth.

But is this perhaps a shortcoming in Tolkien's style? The actions of these "grey" characters and their interaction with others tell us volumes about their inner feelings and struggles. But what about the "good" characters? Do we really "get to know" them? Can we really understand their inner conflicts? Or does the fact that they are on the side of "good" render any understanding of their motivations impossible (other than that they are striving against "evil" in the form of Sauron)?

Take Aragorn, for example. The films give him some depth in his doubt over whether he is truly worthy to take up the mantle of Isildur's heir. We get some sense of this in the Book, in his doubt over what to do for the best following Gandalf's fall in Moria, but overall he was pretty much resolute in the path which he had to follow and comfortable in his destiny. Does this really give us any sense of depth in his character? Perhaps if we were given access to his inner thoughts, we would get a sense of this depth. But we are not. We see him as the Hobbits saw him. A man in respect whom they are at first distrustful but who earns their trust, and who then goes on to prove himself as a mighty warrior and a worthy King. This tells us that he is a heroic character but, in psychological terms, it tells us more about the Hobbits than it does about the character of Aragorn.

Aiwendil, again, said:

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).

Aragorn surely falls into this category of those who are characterised more by their deeds than by their inner persona. That is all well and good. But does it really work that we learn more about the "inner selves" of those who are struggling on the edge of good and evil than those who are resolutely on the side of good?

Child said:

Interestingly, in "real" life, we stand somewhere between the two in regard to characterization. We have access to our own thoughts and feelings, but can only interpret others through the prism of their speech and acts.

That is absolutely true. In the absence of direct access to their thoughts, we react to people on the basis of their deeds and their interaction with us. As readers, we are placed in the same position. So, we (largely) react well to those whose deeds seems to us to be noble, and perhaps have a more adverse reaction to those whose deeds are less than ideal (even though we may find it difficult to live up to the ideal ourselves). And yet it is those "less than ideal" characters who are so much more fleshed out by their words and deeds, and it is perhaps them with whom we should be able to identify more closely.

Does this mean that "psychological depth" (ie inner conflic and struggle) is less appealing to us as readers and that we are looking for the ideals in our reading material? Is this perhaps a plus in Tolkien's approach, rather than a flaw? Is this where he succeeds over other writers in that, in his most obviously commendable characters, he is offering us an ideal? Do we react better to these ideal characters than to those who (albeit in a more grandiose fashion) might represent more closely our own inner struggles?