[Child of the 7th Age]

Saucepan Man,

I'm going to digress from your question for one minute regarding Aragorn to pick up on something Aiwendil said regarding hobbits. Eventually, I hope my point will bring us back to Aragorn. I am phrasing my answer strictly in terms of LotR, rather than considering Silm, at least at this time.

But, if I may say so without undermining my above argument too much, there are good characters that have something like psychological depth - the hobbits, for example (particularly, I think, Bilbo and Sam).

First, Bilbo.... His growth and maturation is the central theme not of the LotR but of The Hobbit. And there is little question that it is the central theme of the entire tale. (Whole books have been written on this point.) Given the possibilities of a children's story, I don't see how anyone could argue that we don't get inside Bilbo's head. We certainly do! At the end of The Book, we know a great deal about Bilbo--how he has grown and changed, his little quirks, likes and dislikes, his sense of humor, how he conquored fear in the tunnel to creep forward and get a look at Smaug, etc., etc.

Secondly, I would add Frodo to the list of hobbits about whom we know something in depth. It is true that we are never told what particular dream or lure is attracting Frodo to the Ring, but we definitely know that there is conflict going on and there is a desire that he is fighting to resist. Similarly, we are aware that, at the same time he is being tempted, his "good" side is also maturing as seen by the Elven light that gleems in his eye, Gandalf's assessment of him at Rivendell as possibly being transformed into the Phial of Galadriel, and the later scenes where pity comes into play with Gollum.

From hints dropped quite early in the book, in Tom Bombadil's house and Rivendell, we are aware that Frodo is beginning to yearn for the Sea and to conceive of a shining place that lies beyond the Shire itself, even at the same time when all Frodo's actions (as well as those of Sam) are obviously motivated by a desire to save the Shire and its way of life.

And, of course, we have Frodo's continuing struggle at the end of the book suggesting that he still desires the Ring as well as the fact that he is in need of healing for past injuries.

The book also shows Sam, Merry, and Pippin maturing. Merry and Pippin, who are the "youngest" at the beginning of the tale, evidence physical growth that is reflective of what is going on inside: a new seriousness and commitment to take action, the ability to make a vow and carry it through. Sam's own path involves several key themes that reflect his maturation: rejecting the temptation of the "super-gardener" presented to him by the Ring, his steadfastness towards Frodo and his ability to reach out and call upon the steadying image of the Shire even in the midst of Mordor's waste, and, finally, his struggle with himself involving pity and mercy in relation to Gollum, which reaches its climax beside the fires of destruction of Mount Doom.

For this reason, I think Pullman is short sighted for stating that only Gollum, out of all the hobbits, is a well developed character. I think he basically dislikes the book for reasons addressed above and is not capable of seeing what is there.

Finally, I would argue that it's not surprising that, of all the characters in the book, we can most easily see growth and change in those characters who are hobbits--both Gollum and the four fellowship hobbits. This is done through two means: the deeds and words of the hobbits themselves and some instances of actually getting inside their heads, especially with Sam. It is generally accepted that most of the action of the LotR is filtered through the hobbits' eyes. Frodo is ostensibly composing much of the narrative, presumably after he's compared notes with his fellow hobbits! Accordingly, we see the action and learn about things from their own perspectives. And just as in real life we are more aware of what's going on inside our own heads, we are more aware of depth of character with the hobbits than with the other strangers whom they're encountering for the first time.

This whole hobbit-centric viewpoint is especially evident in the character of Sam. And because most of us can aspire to be a Sam in our daily life, but not scale Frodo's lofty heights, we are given the most intimate glimpses inside Sam's head. Tolkien was aware of what he was doing: he states this quite bluntly in one of his Letters. During the War, JRRT wrote to his son Christopher and admitted that it was with Sam that he tried to delineate a character in depth, more like what he had earlier done with Bilbo:

Cert. Sam is the most closely drawn character, the successor to Bilbo of the first book, the genuine hobbit. Frodo is not so interesting because he has to be highminded, and has (as it were) a vocation. The book will prob. end up with Sam. Frodo will naturally become too ennobled and rarified by the achievement of the great Quest and will pass West with all the great figures; but S. will settled down to the Shire and gardens and inns.

For all these reasons, Tolkien intends that we see Aragorn as the hobbits see him, which is in a certain limited way: as the heroic figure who was ordained by a whole string of historical events. Overwhelmed as they were with everything new going on about them, could the hobbits have detected the subtle nuances in Aragorn's personality? My personal opinion is 'no'.

You know it's strange. By training and early profession, I am a historian. When I read LotR, and even more when I read Silm and HoMe, I feel, on some level, as if I am reading history (admittedly mythological!) rather than literature per se. And because of that I do not expect the intimate interior glimpses of folk that is so popular in modern literature. Indeed, I expect to see these folk as I see characters in the pageant of history. Some of their motives and feelngs are clearly evident and others are much less so. I am grateful for the interior glimpses I get, but I do not resent the instances like Aragorn where I can only guess at what is going on inside. For me, it is part of the mystery and enchantment of the whole book. Would I have been happier to have been presented with all the answers such as we get in the depiction of many characters in modern literature where we know them inside out? I personally do not think so. But, at heart, this is a matter of individual preference rather than something that critics should determine. Or that's how it seems to me!

Addendum: I was so long typing this crazy post that I missed Littlemanpoet's comments, but I certainly agree with them.

[ November 09, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]