The Saucepan Man wrote:
Quote:
|
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?
|
I would not say necessarily that “psychological depth” is less appealing to us as readers, though I do know that I tend to be drawn to books that are concerned with ideals and/or the struggle to fit that ideal, whatever it may be. So I do not find that psychological depth is unappealing. (Though I prefer Thomas Hardy & George Eliot to Dostoevsky.)
Tolkien’s works on the other hand, are uplifting and serves to give us a model of nobility of spirit to strive for whether it is Sam or Theoden or Aragorn, which other books do not. It is a more hopeful and inspirational work, though admittedly less realistic.
It doesn’t seem correct to speak on whether an approach is right or wrong, for a book should be judged on how effective it is, does the method employed work? In Tolkien’s case I think it worked very well. If it would have been written with more of the internal workings it would have turned out an entirely different book.