Psychological depth in Tolkien's characters

[Lush]

Let's not discredit Pullman for having an opinion.

I've read his stuff, and I don't have to agree with any of his ideas to know that this man knows the score when it comes to good literary characterization.

Saying that Pullman's secularism and adherence to modern standards somehow takes away from his ability to make a fair assessment of what's going on with Tolkien's characters doesn't jive with me.

What is this nebulous modernity that we are trying to define in relation to Pullman's views on Tolkien?

If Pullman is "modern," so are you. And you and you and you. And me. That doesn't stop us from enjoying Tolkien, right?

I think the matter lies largely within the confines of personal taste and personal expectation.

Was Tolkien good at creating psychologically believable characters? Personally, I'd say, not really.

But I didn't pick up the LotR expecting to find some fascinating Freudian parallel contained within Aragorn's relationship with his sword.

I leave that stuff to the likes of F. Scott Fitzgerald and so on, and so forth.

Tolkien fills that other niche for me, the part in my mind that longs to read about galloping steeds and shining rings and kingdoms far, far away.

I don't need psychological depth to enjoy this particular sort of story.

Pullman does. So what? Maybe he knows something we don't. He's seems to be a pretty capable dude, secular or not, "modern" or not. He's been kicking major literary butt, and deservedly so, and I think we ought to take heed of his words, without necessarily letting them tarnish our enjoyment of Tolkien.

I mean, it shouldn't matter if Aragorn will never be as psychologically deep as King Lear.

As long as you are still able to have fun while reading, thinking about, and discussing the story.