[Dininziliel]

I have to toss a couple of things into this thread even though they're mooshy and patchily expressed. This is my first time back after a long absence, and I couldn't leave without saying something!

Going way back to Child's original post . . . Pullman was mentioned. I've never understood just what he means when he dings Tolkien for lack of characterization and psychological depth/cohesiveness. My first reading of His Dark Materials felt so profound. I've recently re-read it and I wonder what the heck I was thinking. While filled with interesting characters, themes, etc., I can't get a handle on Mrs. Coulter. She's all over the place in terms of character, and any web site/message board discussion of this doth rationalize too much. Much of HDM fell apart because it hinged on Mrs. Coulter's character. She was more a plot device than anything else. I cannot think of a single character in LotR who is not consistent with his/her character. While many characters (all of them?) travel their own paths and are changed by their responses to what they encounter--both within in and without--they are always recognizable as themselves. I don't think you could remove one character and still have the same story. I've often felt that what Tolkien is criticized for (trite bedtime stories, lack of psychological depth) is due to a certain school of thought that says existential navel-picking equates with profundity. If a literary work does not have its characters staring out the window pondering the "ennuiness" of themselves, of things, or a combination thereof, it is proclaimed "sophomoric," "simplistic," etc. To my mind, staring out the window and heaving heavy sighs while reflecting on the meaning of life is what one does around prom time and again around mid-life crisis time. At any rate, someone earlier mentioned the self-obsessed being mistaken for having psychological depth. I think it's been settled since then that Tolkien's characters demonstrate just what "psychological depth" will get you--oblivion and ruination.

I think one of Tolkien's goals for LotR and Silmarillion was to illustrate reality--the eternal, the true. What is true is eternal. What we perceive with our senses passes away and is, therefore, unreal. (This relates to earlier posts about the imagined world.) It is the invisible that recurs and harmoniously joins with nature and other beings that is true and, therefore, eternal. This is a greater thing than mere psychology. It seems that if something is not preoccupied with the psychological it is deemed unserious. I don't know what could be more serious than something that manages to strike a true pitch like a tuning fork and resonate with such a vast, motley lot of folk as has Tolkien's works for as long as it has and which shows no sign of stopping.

Since Tolkien himself said he had hoped to create a myth that England could claim for its own, I wonder about the psychological depth of other mythological beings. What about Persephone, Hercules, and, hey! what about that Oedipus? Haven't other "fanciful" characters molded "real" minds and actions throughout centuries? What about Arthur, Galahad, and Mordred? Do they possess more psychological depth than Aragorn, Sam, or Saruman? What is the standard used to designate one set of imaginary characters more meaningful than another set of imaginary characters?

Sometimes it seems to me that all that stands between LotR and universal acceptance of it as a work of profound psychological, philosophical, spiritual significance is the height of hobbits. Perhaps if Bilbo (as he represents hobbits) had a more serious sounding name and a couple more feet of height, it might have been a different story--in many more ways than a few! Perhaps such a sophomoric criteria is the simple cause of the pooh-poohing that has dogged LotR since its publication.

Okay. That's it. I want to end by saying how good it felt to come back and experience the happy appreciation of everyone's erudite, original, and heartfelt ponderings and positings! Thank you for a wonderful evening!